Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1244 (PAT)

Sattan Ram v. State Of Bihar

2000-11-18

P.K.DEB, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2000
Judgment P.K.Deb and Shiva Kirti Singh JJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 20.12.1993 recorded by the then 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Morihari in Sessions Trial No. 7 of the 1993 whereby and whereunder the appellant- Sattan Ram has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The allegation against the appellant, was that he had intentionally committed murder of his wife. Shripati Devi. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.9.1992 Sattan Ram, the accused-appellant came to his sasural at about 5 p.m. and after night meal he went to sleep with his wife deceased Shripati Devi in the same room and in the adjacent room the mother-in-law. Most Kabutari Devi was sleeping. In the midnight at about 11 p.m. she woke up hearing some screaming. On coming out of her house she found that in the adjacent room neither her daughter nor her son-in-law was there. She proceeded further and then she saw that her son-in-law, Satan Ram. accused was quarreling with her daughter, Shripati Devi, in the doorsteps of the neighbouring house belonging to Aklu Ram. In course of that quarrel accused-appellant, Sattan Ram, gave a chhura blow on the abdomen just near the chest of his wife, Shripati Devi. The grand daughter of Kabutari Devi, namely, Sursati Devi also reached the place at the relevant time. After giving the blow the accused-appellant left the place leaving behind his wearing apparels including chappal. Due to chhura blow the wearing blouse of the deceased was also cut and blood Was oozing out when the chhura was being taken out by the accused-appellant. It was stated that some blood stains had also fallen into the person of the accused-appellant. The injured Shripati Devi was brought to her house but as soon as she reached there she fell down and almost she died instantaneously. Before her death neighbouring persons including Aklu Ram, his wife and other reached the place of occurrence hearing crying and there Shripati Devi the deceased stated in presence of all that she was given chhura blow by her husband, Sattan Ram. On the next day fardbeyan of Most. Before her death neighbouring persons including Aklu Ram, his wife and other reached the place of occurrence hearing crying and there Shripati Devi the deceased stated in presence of all that she was given chhura blow by her husband, Sattan Ram. On the next day fardbeyan of Most. Kabutari Devi was recorded at the place of occurrence when police reached there on receipt of information of the occurrence and in thefardbeyan itself details of the occurrence had been given by the informant together with the witnesses present at the time of occurrence. Police held inquest over the dead-body of Shripati Devi and then the dead-body was sent through challan for autopsy. On post-mortem a single injury was found on the person of the deceased causing internal injuries and according to the doctor the injury itself was sufficient for causing death. After closure of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant under Section 302, IPC. On being committed to sessions, charge was framed vide order dated 2.2.1993 under Section 302 of the IPC and when the same was read over and explained to the accused-appellant, he pleaded not guilty. The defence case on the very inception was a total denial of the prosecution case but during the stage of trial defence wanted to show that there was a sudden provocation as result of which the deceased was given the blow out of anger by the husband. The reason behind as was attempted to be shown from the side of the defence that deceased Shripati Devi was in illicit relationship with the son of Aklu Ram and perhaps, on the night of occurrence she had come there and by seeing something unnatural the accused-appellant was infuriated and as such he gave the blow. In support of such plea of the defence, during the course of trial no evidence has been given although some suggestions, were put to the witnesses for the prosecution in that light although those have been denied by the prosecution in toto. 3. For and on behalf of the prosecution as many as eight witnesses have been examined. Out of then direct eye-witnesses are PW 4, Most Kabutari Devi, mother of the deceased and informant in the case and PW 1, Sursati Devi, the grand-daughter of PW 4. She was also an eye-witness to the occurrence as she had seen the occurrence. 3. For and on behalf of the prosecution as many as eight witnesses have been examined. Out of then direct eye-witnesses are PW 4, Most Kabutari Devi, mother of the deceased and informant in the case and PW 1, Sursati Devi, the grand-daughter of PW 4. She was also an eye-witness to the occurrence as she had seen the occurrence. Besides them, PW 2, Jaipati Devi, who happens to be the wife of Aklu Ram at whose doorsteps the occurrence took place, PW 3, Sukhari Ram and PW 7, Deo Narain Mukhiya had come to the place of occurrence on hearing huila just after the occurrence and they have supported the prosecution version that the deceased Shripati Devi had made statement to the effect that she was given chhura blow by her husband, Sattan Ram, the accused-appellant. PW 5, Sunil Prasad, is a formal witness. PW 6, Dr. Uday Shankar Pathak had held autopsy over the dead-body of Shripati Devi and found incised injury in between the abdomen and chest of the deceased causing severe internal injury resulting in death. PW 8, Mahesh Prasad Rai, is the Investigating Officer. After scrutinising the evidence on record the learned Court below found that the prosecution could be able to establish the charge against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, conviction has been recorded and sentence as mentioned above was awarded. 4. On reappreciating the evidence as per submissions made by learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of accused-appellant, we find practically there is only one eye-witness to the occurrence, namely, Most. Kabutari Devi. Although PW 1, Sursati Devi was an eye-witness to the occurrence as she deposed in her examination-in-chief but her evidence cannot be taken into consideration as she did not turn up for cross-examination. Most. Kabutari Devi had been cross-examined to length and from the trends of cross-examination, it could be found that there was no specific denial regarding the knife blow given by Sattan Ram to the deceased rather the defence was trying to show a circumstance in whichlthe accused-appellant being infuriated had given the blow on the person of his wife. Suggestion was put as stated earlier regarding the illicit rela- tionship of the deceased Shripati Devi with the son of PW 2 Jaipati Devi but such suggestion had been formally denied by all the witnesses. Suggestion was put as stated earlier regarding the illicit rela- tionship of the deceased Shripati Devi with the son of PW 2 Jaipati Devi but such suggestion had been formally denied by all the witnesses. Thus, the prosecution case regarding giving knife blow by the accused-appellant, on the deceaseds body is admitted on then remains no scope to rescrutinise the evidence regarding that aspect. About the dying declaration also there is no much denial. It was not the case that the deceased was not in a position to speak rather it was in evidence which could not be shattered by cross-examination that even after receipt of the blow the deceased came on foot from the place of occurrence to her own house and there she fell down and before that she gave statement in presence of witnesses that her husband had given the blow on her. The ocular evidence and the dying declaration has been corroborated by the medical evidence also. In that way on reappreciating the evidence on record we also come to the conclusion that the accused-appellant Sattan Ram, had given the fatal blow on the person of his wife, Shripati Devi. Now, the question comes is whether the case comes under Section 302. IPC or not. It is stated at the bar for and on behalf of accused-appellant that no reason or motive could be attributed to the accused-appellant for causing murder of his wife. Rather, on the other hand, the defence could show there might have been a cause for inflicting the knife blow on the person of his wife as she was in illicit relationship with the son of PW 2, Jaipati Devi (sic). It has further been submitted that the place of occurrence being at the doorsteps of PW 2 rather it suggests of the defence version. It is also stated in that angle investigation was also done by the Investigating Officer and some clue to that effect could be found in the case diary but those facts had never been brought on record by adducing any evidence from the side of the defence nor the I.O. has been cross-examined on that score. So the fact remains that the accused-appellant had given the blow on the person of his wife which caused fatal. So the fact remains that the accused-appellant had given the blow on the person of his wife which caused fatal. When there is eye-witness to the occurrence and also dying declaration of the deceased, then in such sort of cases, motive or mens rea if not presented remains immaterial When the defence is coming with the specific case the burden remains on the defence to show that the prosecution case is a doubtful one. Unless it could be shown from the side of the defence that the husband had the scope to see the illicit relationship of his wife with the son of PW 2 and at the spur of moment he had committed the offence being lost of his balance of mind, there is no scope to come down from the offence of Section 302 of the IPC to that of Section 304, IPC. From the impugned judgment it could be found that the learned Court below has arrived at the conclusion that the case could be established under Section 302, IPC against the accused-appel- lant. We also come to the same finding. 5. Hence, there is no force in this appeal and the same is rejected. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby upheld.