Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1111 (PAT)

Sheo Bihari Rai v. State Of Bihar

2003-10-28

B.K.JHA, R.N.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment R.N.Prasad and B.K.Jha JJ. 1. The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.12.1999 passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Buxar in S.T. No. 35/97 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 302. IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has further been convicted for the offence under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that one Rina Kumari gave her fardbeyan on 30.9.1996 at about 9 a.m. that previous night she, her mother Phulrasi Devi, her father Sheo Bihari Rai, her brother Pradeep Kumar aged abut five years and two younger sisters were sleeping in a room after taking meal. At about 2 a.m. in the night she woke up on hearing weeping sound of her mother and saw her father Sheo Bihari Rai started cutting the neck of her mother. She also started weeping. All the children woke up. Her father cut the neck of her mother. Blood oozed out from the injury. After some time her father threw the dead body in the river Ganga and returned back to the house and told that her mother had been thrown in the river Ganga and he started weeping. 3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan formal first information report was drawn, investigation was taken up and after completion of investigation charge-sheet against the appellant was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. The trial Court convicted the appellant as indicated above. 4. The defence of the appellant was total denial of the occurrence and his false implication in the case. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses, out of whom PW 7 Rina Kumari, the informant and Pradeep Kumar, PW 2 the brother of the informant have claimed to have see the occurrence. PWs 1 and 3 were hear-say witnesses. PW 4 is the Investigating Officer. PW 5 has been declared hostile. PW 6 is witness to the seizure. 6. The salient feature of the case is that mother of the informant, namely Phulvasi Devi, was killed by her father. The informant was a minor girl aged about 8 years at the time of occurrence. PW 4 is the Investigating Officer. PW 5 has been declared hostile. PW 6 is witness to the seizure. 6. The salient feature of the case is that mother of the informant, namely Phulvasi Devi, was killed by her father. The informant was a minor girl aged about 8 years at the time of occurrence. She is an eye-witness to the occurrence and her brother Pradeep who was aged about five years at the time of occurrence is also an eye-witness to the occurrence. The death in this case is not in dispute. The dispute is regarding commission of the occurrence by the appellant. To resolve the issue we proceed to examine the evidence of eye-witnesses. PW 7 is the informant and is daughter of the deceased and the appellant. Her evidence is that in the night of occurrence she, her brother Pradeep, PW 2 and sister Partima were sleeping in the same room in which her mother was killed by her father. In the night her father cut her mother. The dead body was thrown by her father in the river Ganga. At the time of commission of crime her mother was crying. She was weeping. Her father, however, threatened her. The police recorded her fardbeyan and she put signature over the fardbeyan. She was weeping while deposing. In cross-examination she reiterated that all of us were sleeping in the room and she, her brother and sister woke up on hearing cry of their mother. When she woke up her mother was alive. There was no light in the room at the time of occurrence. When she woke up she saw her mother and father scuffling. The river Ganga is at a distance of 50 yards from her house. She had seen her father cutting her mother in the night. She had also seen blood. When her father threatened she covered her face. She had seen her father taking the dead body. No body came in the night. At present she resides with her uncle. She denied that she has been threatened to give false evidence. It appears that she stood the test of cross- examination and nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination to doubt the verasity of her evidence. 7. PW 2 is minor son of the appellant. He was aged about five years at the time of occurrence. She denied that she has been threatened to give false evidence. It appears that she stood the test of cross- examination and nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination to doubt the verasity of her evidence. 7. PW 2 is minor son of the appellant. He was aged about five years at the time of occurrence. The Court tested him and has mentioned in the judgment itself that he was competent to give evidence. His evidence is that his father killed his mother and threw the dead body in the river Ganga. He was sleeping in the same room in which his father had committed murder of his mother. We all were weeping. Murder was committed in the night. He said about the occurrence to others. His father after return from the river Ganga asked not to cry. His father concealed the Dab with which he had killed his mother. In cross- examination the witness reiterated that he had seen committing the crime. The witness was weeping while deposing. He was in the same room in which the murder was committed. After killing, his father threw the dead body in the river Ganga. His father and mother used to quarrel. It appears that the witness was minor but he has given a vivid picture of the occurrence. He also stood the test of cross-examination. The evidence of this witness is consistent to the evidence of PW 7, the informant, on all material points. Both of them have claimed to have seen the occurrence and were in the room at the time of commission of the occurrence by the appellant. 8. The evidence of the Investigating Officer, PW 4, is that on information he went to the village Kamharia where the occurrence took place after makings station diary entry on 30.9.1996. He recorded the fardbeyan, Ext. 1 of PW 7. On the said fardbeyan formal First Information Report, Ext. 2, was drawn. He inspected the place of occurrence and found that the place of occurrence was a tiled room. He found blood in the room and also found bloodstained Dab beneath the Chauki in the room. He also found blood on the wall and the ground. He seized the Dab in presence of the witnesses and prepared seizure list, Ext. 3. He also went near the river Ganga and found some clothes and black hair of woman there. He found blood in the room and also found bloodstained Dab beneath the Chauki in the room. He also found blood on the wall and the ground. He seized the Dab in presence of the witnesses and prepared seizure list, Ext. 3. He also went near the river Ganga and found some clothes and black hair of woman there. He seized those articles and prepared seizure list. He arrested the appellant and found some injury on his person. He prepared injury report and completion, of investigation submitted charge-sheet. However, he admitted that he did not send the seized articles for examination. It appears that the evidence of the witness corroborates the evidence of eye-witnesses. 9. PW 1 is a hear-say witness and she stated that when she went to the place of occurrence PW 2 disclosed that his father had killed his mother. PW 3 stated in his evidence that he learnt from the children of the deceased that the appellant had killed the deceased. He had seen blood at the place of occurrence and also on the Dab. Thus, it appears that these hear-say witnesses also corroborated the evidence of eye-witnesses when they reached to the place of occurrence the name of the appellant was disclosed by the eye-witnesses Le., PWs 2 and 7. 10. Thus, from the discussion of evidence on the record it is evident that the evidence of the eye-witnesses is consistent to the prosecution case on all material points Le., killing of the deceased, place of occurrence, time of occurrence and the manner of occurrence. The evidence of eyewitnesses is also corroborated by the findings of the Investigating Officer that he found blood at the place of occurrence, blood-stained Dab at the place of occurrence and also blood-stain on the wall of the room. Further more, the witnesses who reached at the place of occurrence Le., PWs 1 and 3 also stated that the eye-witnesses disclosed the name of the appellant as killer. The evidence of eye-witnesses is also consistent on the point that after committing murder the appellant threw the dead body in the river Ganga. Thus, the evidence on record fully establish the commission of crime by the appellant. 11. On consideration as discussed above, we find nothing wrong in the judgment and order of conviction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.