Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 95 (JHR)

Srichand Mahto v. State of Bihar

2006-02-06

M.Y.EQBAL, N.DHINAKAR

body2006
By Court.-The accused appeals. Srichand Mahto appellant was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Godda for offences punishable under sections 302/307 of Indian Penal Code, a5 well as under sections 25A and 27 of the Arms Act. The trial Judge, finding the appellant guilty under section 302 IPC convicted and sentenced the appellant for .life while he was found not guilty under the other charges. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life. 2. The facts are as follows: 3. PW 1 Bilkhi Devi is the daughter of the deceased Phuleshwari Devi. They were residing at Paradih village. The appellant wanted the deceased to settle some lands in his name but the deceased was not willing to do so. The appellant sold away certain ornaments as well as a goat belonging to the deceased. On the date of the incident. the deceased Phuleshwar Devi asked the accused as to who committed theft of 'San' (jute). A quarrel ensued between the appellant and the deceased during which the appellant threatened to kill her. At about 9.00 a.m. the deceased was taking a she-goat to tie it and at that time the appellant went there and prevented the deceased from taking the goat. PW 1, the wife of the appellant and the daughter of the deceased, was also present. She took the goat from her mother and tied it to a pole and returned to her house. On returning to the house, she found the door of the room bolted from inside and she knocked the door and called her husband who was inside the room. She also called her mother by her name. A few moments thereafter, the appellant came out of the room after opening the door and PW 1 saw her mother with injuries and hanging with a Dharan (roof). She raised alarm. PW 1 questioned the appellant as to why he killed her mother but the appellant without replying to PW 1 ran away from the place. At that point of time, PWs. 3 to 8 as well as PW 10 rushed to the place on hearing the cries of PW 1. They saw the appellant running away from the place with a pistol in his hand. The witnesses attempted to apprehend the appellant but could not succeed. At that point of time, PWs. 3 to 8 as well as PW 10 rushed to the place on hearing the cries of PW 1. They saw the appellant running away from the place with a pistol in his hand. The witnesses attempted to apprehend the appellant but could not succeed. Though the appellant opened fire, no witness was injured, but it only enabled the appellant to escape as the witnesses were afraid to chase him thereafter. PW 16, the officer-in-charge of Godda PS arrived at the scene of the occurrence at 12.45 p. m. He recorded Ext. 4, the fard beyan, given by PW 1 and later at the police station it was registered as Exhibit 5, the printed First Information Report (FIR). Investigation in the crime was taken up by PW 16. He examined the witnesses and prepared the inquest report Ext. 6 during which statements of the witnesses were recorded. After inquest, he sent the requisition Exhibit-7 to the medical officer requesting him to conduct autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 4. On receipt of the requisition, PW 15, Dr. Raghuvendra Prasad Chaudhary, Medical Officer attached to Govt. Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and he found the following injuries: i. Abrasion with burns on both sides of the neck and front of the neck, except the posterior part of the neck with the impression of string attached to the neck; ii. Abrasion on the left elbow in the size of 6" x 1 ". On dissection the following was found: (i) neck-tracle and oesophague, collapsed with fracture of the hyoid bone; (ii) chest-lungs distended and congested and frothed blood coming out on cutting; (iii) heart-left chamber empty right chamber frothy blood; (iv) abdomen-liver spleen kidney all congested and frothy blood coming out on seopion. (v) head-no fracture of skull. Brain substance congested." The doctor issued Ext. 3, post mortem certificate, opining that the death is on account of asphyxia due to throttling followed by hanging immediately. 5. PW 16 continuing the investigation examined the witnesses and after the completion of investigation filed the final report against the appellant. 6. When questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He did not examine any witness on his side, 7. 5. PW 16 continuing the investigation examined the witnesses and after the completion of investigation filed the final report against the appellant. 6. When questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He did not examine any witness on his side, 7. Learned counsel appearing on be• half of the appellant contends that since all the witnesses belonged to the same village and most of them are related to the deceased, the trial court has committed an error in accepting their evidence and convicting the appellant. It is his further submission that PW 16, the investigating officer, was not competent to investigate and, therefore, the investigation conducted by him is bad in law. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the materials on record. 9. It is not in dispute that Phuleshwari Devi, the mother of PW 1 and also the mother-in-law of the appellant, died on account of homicidal violence. PW 15 who conducted autopsy and issued Ext. 3, the post mortem certificate, gave evidence in no uncertain term that the deceased died on account the injuries suffered by her and that the death was on account of asphyxia due to throttling and immediate hanging. We therefore, on the medical evidence, hold that the deceased died of homicidal violence. 10. According to the prosecution, the appellant and his mother-in-law were not having cordial relationship, as the appellant was interested in some landed property of the deceased. Though he was persisting the deceased to settle the property in his name, the deceased was not willing to do so and there used to be quarrels between them. On the date of the incident, in the early hours, an altercation had ensued between the appellant and the deceased and this is said to be the immediate provocation for the appellant to attack the deceased at 9.00 a.m. on the same day. 11. At about 9.00 a.m. on 20.10.1984, the deceased was taking a she goat to tie it to a pole and the appellant prevented her from doing so. 11. At about 9.00 a.m. on 20.10.1984, the deceased was taking a she goat to tie it to a pole and the appellant prevented her from doing so. PW 1, the wife of the deceased, took the she-goat from her mother and thereafter tied it to the pole and when she was returning, she found the room bolted from inside and realizing that the appellant and the deceased were inside the room, knocked door and called both of them. A few moments thereafter, the appellant alone came out and to her horror, PW 1 found her mother hanging from the roof. She questioned her husband but he did not answer as to how the deceased suffered the injuries. She immediately raised alarm and this alarm brought other witnesses to the scene of the occurrence. They found the appellant running away from the place; they attempted to apprehend the appellant by chasing him. The appellant shot at them. Though no injury was caused to any witnesses, it effectively prevented the witnesses from chasing and apprehending the appellant. The evidence of PW 1 who is none else than the wife of the appellant, which is supported by the evidence of other witnesses clearly shows that the appellant had taken the deceased inside the room and after throttling her hanged her to the roof to make it appear that it is a case of suicide. The evidence of PW 1 suffers from no infirmity. On the contrary, we find that her evidence is not only supported by the evidence of PWs. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 but also by the evidence of PW 4. From a perusal of the evidence of PW 4 it is evident that near the house of the deceased, he heard the cries of the deceased, "bachao, bachao" and on hearing such cries, he went to the scene of the occurrence and found the appellant running away from the place. It is therefore clear from the evidence of the above witnesses that the appellant and the deceased were inside the room and later the appellant \Vas seen by the witnesses running away and he did not give any explanation as to how the deceased suffered injuries and came to be hanged to the roof. It is therefore clear from the evidence of the above witnesses that the appellant and the deceased were inside the room and later the appellant \Vas seen by the witnesses running away and he did not give any explanation as to how the deceased suffered injuries and came to be hanged to the roof. The conduct of the appellant in not giving reply to his wife and his conduct in running away from the place, which is relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act, on being confronted by the villagers coupled with the evidence of PW 4 who heard the distressing cries of the deceased, show that the appellant committed murder of the deceased, his mother-in-law Phuleshwari Devi on account of enmity and ran away from the place in order to escape. 12. On going through the materials placed before us we find no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court. We therefore confirm the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. The Additional Sessions Judge, Godda will take steps to commit the appellant to prison. The appeal is dismissed.