Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 615 (PAT)

Langra Soren v. State Of Bihar

1999-07-21

D.P.S.CHOUDHARY, P.K.DEB

body1999
Judgment 1. These two appeals have been preferred by the sole appellant; one from the jail and another through engagement of a lawyer. The lawyer who appeared for and on behalf of the accused-appellant could not be found even on search and call. In jail appeal, Smt. Gunjita Gupta has been appointed to argue as amicus curiae. She took some time to get herself prepared and then argued the case. She should be paid her fees from the High Court Legal Aid Committee. 2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 2.2.91, passed by the IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka, Santhal Paragna, in S.T. No. 12/90, whereby and whereunder the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that informant, PW-4 Lakhiram Soren lodged an information on 3.4.87 with Littipara Police Station, district Sahebganj, to the effect that his mother Sumi Hembrom had been murdered. It was alleged that his mother was living with the accused-appellant Langra Soren as husband and wife before her death. It was further alleged that off and on they were quarreling amongst themselves and bringing allegations against each other. The cause of the quarrel was that the accused Langra Soren did not earn and used to live on his wifes earning. It is also stated that the day the accused did not earn, he was not given food by the deceased, Sumi Hembrom. On the date of occurrence, in the afternoon hours, Sumi Hembrom went out of home to purchase grocery articles but in the night she did not return. On the next date, the informant and others started searching and on being asked, the accused-appellant gave an evasive reply and from his behaviour, it could be understood that he was the person who had killed Sumi Hembrom. The dead body of the deceased was recovered from a place about 1 km. away from the house and there were injuries on the person of the deceased and blood stains were found over her body, clothings and also nearby stones. A case was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan given by PW-4. The police came to the spot and made inquest over the dead body and then sent the same to hospital for post-mortem examination. A case was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan given by PW-4. The police came to the spot and made inquest over the dead body and then sent the same to hospital for post-mortem examination. The accused Langra Soren was arrested and after closure of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted. It has come during the course of investigation that after the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination, the accused-appellant had left the place and went to his in laws house. Previous to the occurrence also because of the quarrel between the husband and wife, the accused-appellant used to stay at his in-laws house. A lew days prior to the occurrence, he came to his house and at first the accused and the deceased were maintaining good relations and then again trouble started with Sumi Hembrom. When Sumi Hembrom was found missing, the accused-appellant being the husband showed his total indifference to the missing of his wife and on being asked by the informant, the accused had given a reply which gave an impression that he had killed his wife. During the course of investigation, the stone was seized from the place from where the dead body was recovered and it was alleged that by that stone the deceased was killed. When the charges were framed after commitment, the accused-appellant pleaded his innocence. 4. For and on behalf of the prosecution, six witnesses have been examined. The original I.O. who had caused the investigation has not been examined. One Indradeo Gop has been examined as PW-6 who had only submitted the charge-sheet after doing the last part of the investigation regarding collection of post-mortem report, etc. PW-5, Sheo Kumar Gupta is the Medical Officer who held the post-mortem examination over the dead body. PW-4 Lakhi Ram Soren is the informant and the State witness of the prosecution. PW-1 Manjhi Kishku, PW-2 Barasan Soren, PW-3 Dugu Soren are the witnesses in support of the prosecution case regarding seizure of the stone from the place of occurrence. 5. PW-5, Sheo Kumar Gupta is the Medical Officer who held the post-mortem examination over the dead body. PW-4 Lakhi Ram Soren is the informant and the State witness of the prosecution. PW-1 Manjhi Kishku, PW-2 Barasan Soren, PW-3 Dugu Soren are the witnesses in support of the prosecution case regarding seizure of the stone from the place of occurrence. 5. After considering the evidence on the record, the learned Sessions Judge came to the finding that although there is no eye-witness to the occurrence but there was extrajudicial confession being made by the accused-appellant before PW-4 and others and the circumstances are such that the same finger towards the guilt of the accused-appellant and thus, he arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused-appellant and as such convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 6. The only evidence available for and on behalf of the prosecution is some unnatural behaviour of the accused-appellant and his so-called confession being made before the informant, PW-4. None of the witnesses have supported the extra-judicial confession being made by the accused. Appellant except PW-4, It has come from the evidence of PW-4 that the deceased and the accused-appellant have four sons and all those sons were living separately while the appellant and the deceased were living separately. So on the date of the occurrence, the informant was not staying at the house of the accused-appellant or the deceased. He came to the scene of the occurrence when it could be learnt that the mother had not returned in the last night. He asked his father as to where his mother had gone and then he replied in the following manner. Meaning thereby that she has been finished there. Besides that statement, no other statement is by the accused-appellant, before anybody to the effect that he was the person who had killed his wife. In the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. also the accused totally denied of his involvement with the crime. He has also not supported the prosecution case regarding making of the extra-judicial confession before anybody including PW-4. So except the above statement which has come in the evidence of PW-4, there is no other evidence to the effect that the accused-appellant had specifically made any statement before anybody to the effect that he had killed his wife. He has also not supported the prosecution case regarding making of the extra-judicial confession before anybody including PW-4. So except the above statement which has come in the evidence of PW-4, there is no other evidence to the effect that the accused-appellant had specifically made any statement before anybody to the effect that he had killed his wife. The stone which was recovered as the means or the weapon used for the purpose of killing has never been shown to the accused-appellant. It was only by (Sic) that the same had been seized as the injuries showed that those might have been caused by stone, although the same has not been totally supported by the medical evidence. The doctore who held the post-mortem examination has not stated about the means/weapon by which injuries had been caused except that those were, lacerated injuries. The post-mortem report is silent about the size of the injuries except that it was lacerated in nature. Only one injury was found by the doctor on the forehead of the deceased, but as per the evidence of PW-4, there were several injuries on the person of the deceased. In the inquest report also, there were three injuries found on the dead body. It appears that the post-mortem examination was done in a very casual manner and a cryptic report was submitted. So the post-mortem report or the evidence of the doctor does not lead to anything against or in favour of the accused-appellant. Regarding the circumstances, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge had considered the unnatural behaviour of the accused-appellant to the effect that being the husband of the deceased, he showed his total indifference in going to search has missing wife and after the dead body could be recovered he just left the place for his in laws house. This behaviour might be unnatural but in the backdrop of the fact that the spouses were not having good terms the same cannot be said to be to much unnatural. However, the unnatural behaviour and the previous history of quarrel between the two may lead to strong suspicion about the involvement, of the appellant with the crime, but suspicion cannot take the place of proof of guilt. It appears that in the present case, the prosecution could not be able to bring any cogent, evidence except the unnatural behaviour or the suspicion against the accused-appellant. It appears that in the present case, the prosecution could not be able to bring any cogent, evidence except the unnatural behaviour or the suspicion against the accused-appellant. On such a scanty evidence and materials, there is no scope to arrive at a conclusion that the accused-appellant had caused the murder of his wife. On independent scrutiny of the evidence on record, we come to the conclusion that the appellant is definitely entitled to benefit of doubt due to scanty evidence against him and the circumstances as attempted to be proved against him could not be proved as such to finger towards his guilt. 7. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted and is relieved of his bail-bond which must have been submitted on the basis of the bail order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 24.4.92.