Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 95 of 1998(P) (Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.02.1998 (sentence passed on 10.02.1998) passed by Sri Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 104 of 1997/31 of 1997.) Pradeep Sharma, S/o Puran Sharma (Mistry), R/o Vill- Bhatdiha, P.S. Godda(T), Dist.- Godda. ... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) … Respondent ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ---- CAV on : 07/01/2025 Pronounced on: 14/01/2025 Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.02.1998 (sentence passed on 10.02.1998) passed by Sri Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 104 of 1997/31 of 1997 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/324 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the conviction under Section 302 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The fardbeyan of Meera Devi was recorded on 22.03.1997 in an injured condition in which it has been stated that her marriage was solemnized with Bijay Kumar about 9-10 years back and she has two sons out of the said wedlock. At 7:30P.M., she, her husband and Putul Devi were in the room over the terrace and the husband of the informant was having his meals. The door was open and since there 2 | P a g e was a power cut, a lantern was burning. In the meantime, Pradeep Sharma (appellant) came inside the room with a pistol and shot at the husband of the informant from close range. The accused had also stabbed his sister 3-4 times and when the informant started raising a commotion, she was dragged towards the door by the accused and she was also struck on the head with the butt of the pistol which resulted in the informant becoming unconscious. The accused in the meantime, had fled away. It has been stated that the husband of the informant and Puran Mistry were good friends and the children of Puran Mistry were given tuition by the husband of the informant. Putul Devi and the accused regularly came to the house of the informant. About 5-6 years back, the marriage of Putul Devi was solemnized at Dumka. The informant had come to know about one and half years back, regarding the love affair between her husband and Putul Devi prior to the marriage of the informant and about two days back her husband had brought Putul Devi to his house, where Putul Devi started residing. The illicit relationship between the husband of the informant and Putul Devi had come to the knowledge of the family members of Puran Mistry and this was the reason for Pradeep Sharma to have shot dead the husband of the informant. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Godda (Town) P.S. Case No. 54/97 was instituted against Pradeep Sharma. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 104 of 1997/31 of 1997. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302, 307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act which was read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 11(eleven) witnesses in support of its case: P.W.1 Anti Mandal has identified his signature as well as the signature of Bharat Mandal upon the seizure list of an empty cartridge and 8-10 pieces of broken bangles which have been marked as 3 | P a g e Exhibit-1 and 1/a respectively. He has also identified his signature and the signature of Bharat Mandal on the seizure list of a slipper and bed sheet which have been marked as Exhibits-2 and 2/a respectively. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was not recorded by the Police. P.W.2 Bharat Mandal has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.3 Rajendra Prasad Yadav has identified his signature and the signature of Chakradhari Yadav upon the inquest report which have been marked as Exhibit-3 and 3/a respectively. P.W.4 Bibhuti Mandal has stated that when he returned home from Hasdiha at 7:30P.M., the wife of Bijay Babu came weeping and disclosed that Pradeep Sharma has shot dead Bijay Babu. She had also disclosed that Pradeep Sharma has given knife blows to another girl and she requested him to take them to the hospital. He had taken both the injured to the hospital in his car and while Bijay Babu was declared dead, the other girl and the wife of Bijay Babu were treated by the doctor. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was recorded by the Police at 11:30P.M. Except him and the wife of Bijay Babu, none else were present when Bijay Babu was being pushed into the back seat of the car. P.W.5 Meera Devi is the informant and the wife of the deceased, who has stated that on 22.03.1997 in between 7-7:30P.M., she was on the cot sitting, while her husband was taking his meals. Besides the cot, Putul Devi was sitting on a chair. Her two sons had gone to their grandparents’ place on account of Holi festival. At that point of time, there was a power cut and a lantern was burning on the table. The accused Pradeep Sharma had entered the room with a pistol and fired at the neck of her husband from close proximity and her husband fell down on the cot. The accused assaulted his sister Putul Devi with a knife 3-4 times and when she tried to obstruct him, she was dragged by her hair outside the room. Before fleeing away, the accused had given a blow on her head with the butt of the pistol. She 4 | P a g e has stated that she rushed out of the house crying for help and Bibhuti Mandal, who had a car took her, Putul Devi and her husband to Sadar Hospital, Godda. The doctor had disclosed that her husband has died and she and Putul Devi were treated at the hospital. Her fardbeyan was recorded by the Police which was signed by her and Banarsi Prasad Yadav and the signatures have been marked as Exhibit-4 and 4/a respectively. She has stated that on 20.03.1997, her husband had brought Putul Devi to his house and had disclosed that he has married Putul Devi in Court and henceforth, she will be residing in the same house. About one and half years ago, she had come to know about the love affair between her husband and Putul Devi. In cross-examination, she has deposed that before her marriage the accused and Putul Devi were frequenting the house of her husband. She had not believed that her husband was having a love affair with Putul Devi. It is not a fact that she had objected to the illicit relationship between her husband and Putul Devi. When the accused had entered, his face was not covered. Nobody had come to her house on hearing the sound of firing. P.W.6 Banarsi Prasad Yadav has stated that he had come to his brother's place on 22.03.1997. He was not present at the time of the incident as he had gone to Godda Bazar. When he was returning at 8:30P.M., he met on the way Bharat Mandal who disclosed that Pradeep Sharma had fired at his brother. He went to the hospital and saw his brother dead, while Putul Devi and the wife of his brother were found in an injured condition and they were being treated by the doctor. The Police came and recorded the fardbeyan of Meera Devi in which he has also signed as a witness. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was never recorded by the Police. P.W.7 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Choudhary was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Godda and on 22.03.1997, he had examined Putul Devi and had found the following: (i) Incised wound 1” x ½” x 1” over left arm. 5 | P a g e (ii) Incised wound 1.5” x ½”x ½” over back right side. (iii) Incised wound 1” x ½” x ½”over back left side. (iv) Incised wound 1” x ½”x ½” over back below wound no. (iii). (v) Incised wound ½”x ½” x ½” over chest near left axilla. All the injuries were opined to be simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon. He has proved the injury report which has been marked as Exhibit-5. P.W.8 Dr. Satendra Mishra was posted as a Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Godda and on 23.03.1997, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bijay Kumar and had found the following: (i) External Injury- An oval penetrating wound 1½”x 1” on the left anterior triangle of neck just lateral to midline. Multiple linear tiny abrasions with charring of skin area extending from one shoulder to other above the inter mammary line. On probing the wound, it lead to the upper left paravertebral region at the level of 8 dorsal vertibra where a hard conical foreign body was palpated. The cause of death was opined to be due to severe hemorrhage and shock resulting from the above-mentioned injuries caused by firearm. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-6. On the same day, he had examined Meera Devi and had found the following: (i) Lacerated wound ¼”in diameter with a surrounding haematoxy on the left half of occipital region. All the injuries were opined to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. He has proved the injury report which has been marked as Exhibit-7. 6 | P a g e P.W.9 Putul Devi has stated that she knows Bijay Yadav as she was taking tuition from him. Bijay Yadav had forcibly married her in Court on 20.03.1997 and after marriage, she was brought to the house of Bijay Yadav, where she started living with Bijay Yadav and his wife Meera Devi. She has stated that on 22.03.1997 at 7:30P.M., she was in the room and Bijay was taking meals, when a person of 6 feet height came and started assaulting her and when Bijay came to her rescue he was shot at. She had received stab injuries with a knife on her back arm and chest. She could not recognize the assailant as his face was covered. It is not a fact that she had stated before the Police that she was in love with Bijay when she was taking tuition from him. In cross-examination, she has deposed that when Bijay Yadav brought her to his house after marriage, Meera Devi had threatened her of committing her murder for spoiling her life. P.W.10 Kumod Kumar is a photographer in OSHO Studio, who has proved the photographs which have been marked as material Exhibit nos. 1 to 1/6. The negatives have been proved and marked as Exhibit-2 as a whole. P.W.11 Jagdish Prasad Sharma was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police in Godda(Town) P.S. and on 22.03.1997, he had received an information of a firing which had taken place at Bhatdiha and after making a station diary entry, he and A.S.I Janardan Singh went to investigate. At Sadar Hospital, Godda Bijay Yadav was found dead while Meera Devi and Putul Devi were found injured. He had recorded the fardbeyan of Meera Devi in Sadar Hospital itself. The fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8. The forwarding report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-9. The endorsement in the fardbeyan has been marked as Exhibit-10 and the formal FIR has been marked as Exhibit-11. He has proved the requisitions to the doctor for treating Meera Devi and Putul Devi which have been marked as Exhibit-12 and 12/a respectively. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is a double storied house besides the Godda-Hasdiha road. He had seized an empty cartridge, some broken 7 | P a g e bangles and blood stains which have been marked as material Exhibit Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The slippers and bedsheet have been produced by him which have been marked as material Exhibit nos. 6 and 7 respectively. The seizure lists have been proved and marked as Exhibit- 13 and 13/a. The jar containing the bullet has been marked as material Exhibit-8. The inquest report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-14. He had recorded the statements of the witnesses including Meera Devi and Putul Devi. He had received the injury reports and the post-mortem report and also got the place of occurrence photographed. He has stated that Putul Devi in her statement had mentioned about she being in love with Bijay Yadav when she was taking tuition from him. She had also stated about a six feet person entering into the room and firing at Bijay Yadav. In cross-examination, he has deposed that Meera Devi neither in her farbeyan, nor in her statement had mentioned about she disclosing to Bibhuti Mandal that Pradeep Sharma had shot at Bijay Yadav. He had not sent the blood stains, bedsheet and slipper for chemical examination. He had also not sent the empty cartridge for examination by an expert. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the commission of murder of Bijay Yadav. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.5 and P.W.9 are the eyewitnesses to the murder, but P.W.9 has failed to identify the assailant and, therefore, the solitary evidence of P.W.7, in absence of any corroboration, cannot be relied upon. It has been submitted that there was absolutely no motive for committing the murder of Bijay Yadav by the appellant. The deceased and the appellant were on good terms and who used to frequent the house of the deceased. 7. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. has submitted that P.W.9 has not recognized the appellant as the assailant for obvious reasons since the appellant is the brother of P.W.9. The evidence of P.W.5 is clear, cogent and consistent with respect to the appellant entering into the 8 | P a g e room and firing at Bjay Yadav resulting in his death. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 9. The appellant is said to have entered into the room where the deceased, his wife Meera Devi and his second wife and sister of the appellant were present and without any pretensions, had shot at Bijay Yadav from close range resulting in his death. The appellant had also given knife blows upon his sister and when the informant intervened, she was dragged out and assaulted on the head with the butt of the pistol, the appellant was having in his possession. The only eyewitnesses to the occurrence are P.W.5 and P.W.9. While P.W.9 has failed to recognize the assailant, P.W.5 has specifically stated about the appellant firing at her husband. As per P.W.5, the appellant had entered into her room and had shot at her husband from point blank range and had also inflicted stab injuries upon P.W.9, who happened to be the sister of the appellant. The evidence of P.W.9 in not recognizing the assailant is understandable considering the fact that the appellant is the brother of P.W.9. The evidence of P.W.5, however, has completely demolished such assertion and in fact, whatever has been stated by P.W.5 finds corroboration from the post-mortem report as well as the injury reports of P.W.5 and P.W.9. The motive for the incident is also palpable as the deceased was the tuition teacher of P.W.9 and the appellant, and despite P.W.9 being married, the deceased who had a love affair with P.W.9 as stated even by P.W.5 had solemnized a court marriage and had brought her home as his second wife just a few days prior to the incident of firing. The evidence of P.W.5 also reveals that the appellant used to frequent her house and as such, no doubt arises with respect to the identification of the appellant as the assailant. The source of identification was a lantern burning in the room and having seen the firing from close range as also being a victim of the assault with the butt of a pistol, these features further enhances the trustworthiness of the evidence of P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.5 would, therefore, overshadow the tainted version of P.W.9 and on consideration of the 9 | P a g e entire facets of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.02.1998 (sentence passed on 10.02.1998) passed by Sri Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No.104 of 1997/31 of 1997 and consequently, we dismiss the appeal. 10. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 14th Day of January, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.