Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 317 (JHR)

Tala Marandi v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2007-04-17

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, D.P.SINGH

body2007
Judgment By Court.-Sole appellant Tala Marandi stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life, by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda Sessions Case No. 52 of 1994/22 of 1994. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the morning of .18.1.1994, the appellant asked the informant, his wife (P.W.1) to get the clothes washed at village pond situated in Mauza-Bansjori Bada Tolo, Police Station-Sunder Pahari, District-Godda. According to informant, she left her three months' old son, Jitan Marandi, with the appellant and went to wash the clothes. As further stated, when she returned in house after half an hour, she found the appellant causing injuries on infant, Jitan Marandi with a "Basula" in his hand. When she raised alarms, the appellant fled away leaving the said "Basula" in the house. The informant found the child has already died because of injuries caused on his neck and head. Villagers were informed, who caught hold of the appellant. 3. The matter was reported to Sundar Pahari Police, who arrived at the place of occurrence in the night after receiving information and recorded the statements of the wife of the appellant. The police further prepared the inquest report of the dead body, seized the weapon of assault and blood stained soils from the place of occurrence in presence of witnesses, P.W 2, P.W 3 and PW 4. The doctor on postmortem examination found two incised wounds on the neck of the infant and several fractures in the skull. The police finally submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code including Dular Hansda as the co-accused. The trial of the petitioner alongwith Dular Hansda were committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was framed against them on 11.8.1994 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be innocent. However, the learned trial court after examining the witnesses while acquitting co-accused Dular Hansda from the charge found and held the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant in custody. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, has been appointed as Amicus curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the appellant. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant in custody. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, has been appointed as Amicus curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the appellant. According to learned Amicus curiae, the prosecution story suffers from lack of any positive evidence and further supporting evidence that the appellant has caused death of deceased Jitan Marandi. Our attention was drawn towards the cross-examination of P.W. 1 where she admitted that she was not properly married with the appellant. It is suggested that when the appellant was out of place, the child was born out of illicit relationship and informant herself has caused death of the child. However, this suggestion appears to be farfetched. It was also stated that the learned trial court has not considered the contradictions in prosecution story. It was also asserted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence except the informant. 5. We have carefully gone through the materials available on records. It is undisputed fact on record that Jitan Marandi was left alive by the informant when she has gone to wash clothes putting her son in custody of the appellant. It is also undisputed fact that she was living with the appellant at that time. She has admitted in her examination-in-chief that when she came from pond, she saw the appellant cutting Jitan Marandi with "Basula". She is a truthful witness, as she has not asserted that the appellant was arrested in the village itself but from Sabalpur, resident of co-accused Dular Hansda, first wife of the appellant. P.W. 2 Tala Tudu, P.W. 3 Hiralal Sah, P.W. 4 Churka Marandi and P.W 5 Anil Chandra Mandai, are witnesses on the inquest report and seizure list Ext. 1 and Ext. 2 respectively. P.W. 2 has further asserted that the informant was the second wife of the appellant and the deceased was born from their wedlock, who died in January 1994. He truthfully admitted that he does not know how the boy died, but admitted his signature on the inquest report. Other witnesses have admitted during cross-examination before the Court that the informant was married with the appellant and the weapon of assault was recovered in the house of the appellant. 6. P.W 6 is the investigating officer of this case, who has supported the prosecution case and proved the inquest report, seizure list prepared by him in presence of witnesses. Other witnesses have admitted during cross-examination before the Court that the informant was married with the appellant and the weapon of assault was recovered in the house of the appellant. 6. P.W 6 is the investigating officer of this case, who has supported the prosecution case and proved the inquest report, seizure list prepared by him in presence of witnesses. He has described the place of occurrence. However, he admitted that seized articles were neither available in Court nor they were sent for any forensic examination. P.W.7 Dr. K.N. Choudhary, has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Jitan Marandi, an infant of three months, on 19.1.1994 and found multiple fractures over the skull bone on both sides. He further found two incised wounds in front of neck and the larynx covered with blood clots, resulting in death of the child. P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 have not supported the prosecution case. 7. However, from the evidence available on records, it is apparent that the informant and the appellant were only the adult members of the house when she went to pond to wash clothes of the appellant. She has specifically asserted in her statement before the court also that when she returned she found the appellant cutting the child with "Basula". The injuries found on the deceased have been supported by P.W. 7 to be caused by sharp cutting weapon. The appellant has not explained during his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure how these injuries were possible on the child, who was only three months old. The seizure of "Basula" is also supported by P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. The suggestion that in absence of said "Basula" and forensic report on nature of the blood found on soil as well as on the weapon, conviction is not tenable cannot be accepted in the face of the specific evidence by P.W. 1 that she saw the appellant causing injuries on the deceased. She is admittedly the wife of the appellant and no apparent reason has been brought on record why she should falsely implicate her own husband. She may be the only probable witness of the occurrence as she has come back from pond when the offence was being committed. She is admittedly the wife of the appellant and no apparent reason has been brought on record why she should falsely implicate her own husband. She may be the only probable witness of the occurrence as she has come back from pond when the offence was being committed. The suggestion that the boy might have been born out of wedlock of appellant and the informant may be one of the cause to commit this offence. 8. Having regard to the abovementioned facts and circumstances, we find that the prosecution in the present case has been able to prove beyond doubts that the appellant has caused death of Jitan Marandi, an infant of three months and the learned court below has rightly found and held him guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, we find that the present appeal has got no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the conviction of the appellant and sentence passed against him are hereby confirmed and this appeal be dismissed.