Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 108 (JHR)

Bhadra Dehri v. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2007-02-22

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. Sole appellant Bhadra Dehri stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 436 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 324 of 1993. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the night of 17.5.1993 at about 11.00 P.M., the informant (P.W.1) woke up on hearing hulla to find that the house of the appellant was burning. He along with other villagers, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5, rushed to the place of occurrence to further find that the appellant was carrying an axe and the dead body of his wife Chatur Dehrian having her head severed was lying on cot. According to the informant, the appellant was threatening any one coming near to him saying that he has sacrificed the lady to please his forefathers. The villagers keeping watch over the appellant called the village Chowkidar. However, due to fear no one came near the appellant present at the place of occurrence. In the morning, the appellant was overpowered and confined by village people while information was sent to Sikaripara Police regarding the incident. 3. Sikaripara Police arrived at the place of occurrence next day 18.3.1993 and recorded the statement of informant at 13.30 hours in which details of the incident were given, on the basis of which Sikaripara Police Station Case No. 44 of 1993 was registered under Sections 302/436 of the Indian Penal Code. The police further arrested the appellant and recorded his confessional statement. The police prepared the inquest report, sent dead body for post-mortem examination and seized the weapon used in the offence along with bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence. The police after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 302 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code for which he was tried and finally convicted to be sentenced as mentioned aforesaid. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant from jail, admitted on 18.12.1995 and Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, was appointed Amicus Curiae to this assist this Court for disposal of the case on merit. 5. Mr. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant from jail, admitted on 18.12.1995 and Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, was appointed Amicus Curiae to this assist this Court for disposal of the case on merit. 5. Mr. Pathak, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is bad because the learned trial court has relied upon the alleged extra judicial confession. It is further submitted that the learned court below has not taken care to ascertain the truth of the matter, as P.W. 2 has been declared hostile. It is also submitted that in absence of Forensic report of blood seized axe and soil, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not maintainable. Therefore, the appellant having remained in custody for last fourteen years may be acquitted of the charges. 6. We have anxiously considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The prosecution examined during trial altogether eight witnesses, out of which P.W. 8 is Dr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, who conducted the post-mortem examination and proved the report as Ext. 6. The post-mortem report mentions that the severed head along with trunk was compared indicating that the head and body was of the same body. It has further mentioned that the head of the dead body were separated due to a sharp cut wound on the neck passing through muscle, major vessels, jugular vein, esophagus and spinal cord. It means that the entire neck was cut resulting in severance of the body and the head. P.W. 7 Ali Ahmad Khan, Constable No. 603, has carried the body for post-mortem examination. P.W. 6 Yamuna Prasad Singh, the investigating officer of this case, has proved the inquest report; seizure list of axe and bloodstained soil vide Ext. 4 series. 7. P.W.1 Manshi Dehri, P.W. 3 Chhota Mangal Dehri, P.W. 4 Dharma Dehri and P.W. 5 Sukhlal Dehri, have supported the prosecution case in details. According to them, they heard hulla and arrived at the place of occurrence to find that the appellant was moving around the dead body of his wife Chatur Dehrian having an axe in his hand and threatening villagers not to come near him, otherwise they would be killed. They have consistently supported the prosecution version during cross-examination. According to them, they heard hulla and arrived at the place of occurrence to find that the appellant was moving around the dead body of his wife Chatur Dehrian having an axe in his hand and threatening villagers not to come near him, otherwise they would be killed. They have consistently supported the prosecution version during cross-examination. The defence has not brought on record any material to show that the appellant was falsely implicated and the murder was committed by someone else of the village. The appellant himself has not claimed any such fact, rather, he claimed that the villagers were against him, but without any rhyme and reason. P.W.2 Mangal Dehri, the brother of the appellant, has turned hostile quite naturally as he asserted that he was not present in the villager at the time of occurrence, but even this witness has not supported the defence version that the appellant was being implicated falsely by the villagers. The wife of this witness and the mother of the appellant have not come to support the defence version. The investigating officer during cross-examination has supported the facts brought before him. He was cross-examined on the point when he received information, when he recorded the statement of P.W.1 and why he has not sent the materials seized by him for forensic examination. The lapses on the part of the investigating officer could not be used against the eyewitnesses, P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W. 5, who have consistently supported the prosecution case that in the night of 17.5.1993, the appellant was seen by them having bloodstained axe material Ext.1 in his hand and the dead body of the deceased Chatur Dehrian lying on cot. In such circumstances, the ocular witness cannot be discarded just because the investigating officer has lodged the first information report after three-four hours and did not sent the seized articles for forensic examination. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we find that the appellant was seen by independent and probable witnesses of the village carrying bloodstained axe in his hand around the dead body of his wife. It has further come on record that he set the house on fire and asserted before the villagers that he has done this to please his forefathers. The belief of innocent tribal in this context is well known to all of us. It has further come on record that he set the house on fire and asserted before the villagers that he has done this to please his forefathers. The belief of innocent tribal in this context is well known to all of us. We do not find probability of false implication by the villagers. All these facts have been discussed by the trial court in paragraphs-10, 11, 12 and 15 of the impugned judgment. The learned trial court has discussed the affect of extra judicial confession in paragraph-16 of the impugned judgment. 9. We further find that even in absence of extra judicial confession, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W. 5, who arrived at the house of the appellant immediately on hulla and saw him moving with bloodstained axe around the dead body of his wife stands corroborated with the post-mortem report that the head and trunk of the body of Chatur Dehrian was severed with a sharp cutting weapon. There are no circumstances available on record, which indicates that the villagers have implicated the appellant falsely in this case. In such circumstances, we find and hold that the learned trial court has rightly found and held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, we find that the present appeal has got no merit. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court against the appellant are hereby confirmed.