Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 457 (JHR)

Sonaram Gope v. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2006-04-25

N.DHINAKAR, RAKESH RANJAN PRASAD

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. The accused appeals. 2. The appellant, Sona Ram Gope, was charged under Section 302 I.P.C on the allegation that on 21.2.1995, he murdered his mother Asha Gourin, by inflicting injuries with Farsa. The learned Trial Judge, on the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, accepting the prosecution case, sentenced him to imprisonment for life and hence the appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution is this: Priya Devi, wife of Ganesh Chandra Gope, is the sister-in-law of the appellant. The appellant had four brothers including the husband of Priya Devi. The deceased Asha Gourin is the mother of the appellant and mother-in-law of P.W.1 Priya Devi. They were residents of village - Bankati. The deceased was getting family pension and the appellant was in the habit of demanding money from his mother and whenever she refused to give, the appellant used to get angry. This is said to be the motive. 3. At about noon on 21.2.1995, when the deceased Asha Gourin sat to take her meals. At that time P.W.1 Priya Devi and one Durga Kumari were also present in the house. The appellant entered the house with Farsa in his hands and assaulted the deceased Asha Gourin. On receiving the injury, Asha Gourin fell down. P.W.1 Priya Devi raised alarm. The occurrence was also witnessed by P.W.2 Durga Kumari, who was inside the house. The appellant came out of the house and ran away, which was seen by Karkar Gope, who was the son-in-law of the deceased. P.W.3 Karkar Gope entered the room and found the deceased Asha Gourin lying in a pool of blood. On the same day at about 9.00 a.m., the fardbeyan, Ext.3, was given by P.W.1 Priya Devi at the police station, on the basis of which the F.I.R was registered. Investigation in the crime was taken up by P.W.8, Naval Kishore Singh, who conducted inquest and prepared the inquest report, Ext.4. After the inquest, the Officer sent the body for post mortem with a requisition. 4. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.9, Dr. Investigation in the crime was taken up by P.W.8, Naval Kishore Singh, who conducted inquest and prepared the inquest report, Ext.4. After the inquest, the Officer sent the body for post mortem with a requisition. 4. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.9, Dr. D.N. Jha, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Asha Gourin and he found the following injuries: (i) Incised wound over the nape of the neck with fracture of the second servical bone 3" x 1" bone deep (ii) Incised wound over the front of the right chest 3" x 2" x visra deep (iii) Incised wound over the left elbow 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" with fracture of the left forearm bone. The Doctor issued Ext.1, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that death is on account of shock and hemorrhage due to injury No. (i) and that the injuries would have beep caused by sharp cutting substance, such as Farsa. 5. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed against the appellant, who denied all the incriminating circumstances, when he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is delay in lodging the first information statement and therefore, the case of the prosecution is to be disbelieved. The counsel further submits that since the Investigating Officer did not recover the Farsa and the other utensils which could have shown that the deceased was cut by the appellant, the prosecution case is to be disbelieved. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel that since three of the witnesses have stated that the appellant was cultivating his lands and was getting sufficient income, there was no need for him to have demanded money as claimed by the prosecution through P.W.1. The counsel, therefore, submits that the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. On the above contention, we have heard Mr. B.B. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the State. 7. The prosecution, by examining Dr. D.N. Jha, the post mortem doctor, and by marking Ext.1, the post mortem certificate, in which the injuries found on the dead body of Asha Gourin, are found noted, proved the case beyond doubt that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence. The said fact is also not disputed. 8. 7. The prosecution, by examining Dr. D.N. Jha, the post mortem doctor, and by marking Ext.1, the post mortem certificate, in which the injuries found on the dead body of Asha Gourin, are found noted, proved the case beyond doubt that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence. The said fact is also not disputed. 8. The case of the prosecution, as could be seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, is that while the deceased was about to take her meals in her room, the appellant went there armed with Farsa and thereafter assaulted her, as a result of which the deceased Asha Gourin died. We have perused the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. They are natural witnesses, since P.W.1 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, she having been married the youngest son of the deceased Asha Gourin and P.W.2 is also a niece as she is one of the daughters of the brothers of the appellant. The two witnesses being related to the appellant had no reason to come with false evidence. The contention of the learned Counsel that the appellant had been falsely implicated with a view to snatch away the property of the appellant is without any basis. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, we are unable to reject the case of the prosecution that the appellant inflicted Farsa blows leading to her death. It is, no doubt, true that the occurrence took place at about 9.00 a.m. and the complaint was given on the next day at Jagarnathpur police station. The settled law is that mere delay in laying the complaint will not by itself be fatal to the prosecution case, unless there are suspicious circumstance and features surrounding the complaint and merely because there is some delay in laying the complaint at the police station, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. It is also worthwhile to remember that the occurrence had taken place in the village and the witnesses are illiterates. In the above circumstances, we find that a short delay in laying the complaint is not fatal on the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. The other contention of the counsel is that the utensils and other articles were not seized from the scene of occurrence and hence the occurrence did not take place in the manner spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2. 9. The other contention of the counsel is that the utensils and other articles were not seized from the scene of occurrence and hence the occurrence did not take place in the manner spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2. We are unable to accept the said contention. The appellant did not dispute before the trial court that the occurrence did not take place in the house of the deceased. The scene of occurrence having been accepted, as put forth by the prosecution, non- recovery of the utensils will not in any way affect the prosecution. Similarly, the contention of the counsel that since the appellant was getting sufficient income from his land, he could not have murdered his mother is to be stated only to be rejected. Except for the oral evidence of the witnesses that the appellant was getting sufficient income, there is no other material on record, worth considering to show that the appellant was getting sufficient income for him not to make any demand from his mother. Even if it is to be assumed that the appellant was getting sufficient income form his landed property, it cannot by itself show that he was not demanding money from his mother as spoken to by P.W.1. 10. The other contention of the counsel that the Doctor found empty stomach and hence the deceased would not have been murdered at the time mentioned by the witnesses is also to be rejected. The prosecution had come out with a case that the deceased was about to take her meals and it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased had taken her meals and that the occurrence took place thereafter. The case of the prosecution itself is that the deceased sat down to take her meals and at that time, the appellant came and cut the deceased. On the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.