Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 414 (JHR)

Rasmuni Marandi v. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2007-05-10

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. Sole appellant Rasmuni Marandi stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of her own Gotani, Dola Murmu in the night of 8th of May, 1995 inside her house and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life, by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 1995. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that informant Sutilal Hansda and his mother Dola Murmu were related with the appellant. The appellant stands prosecuted. According to the informant, he along with the deceased used to reside at the verandah of the appellant because of financial scarcity and health problem. On the fateful day, the husband of the appellant was seriously ill. The deceased was called by the appellant to help her in attending her husband inside the room. However, the husband of the appellant, Gadur Hansda died during the night at about 12.00. after which the appellant assaulted the deceased with back of Tangi alleging that she was dian and she has caused death of her husband. The informant could not resist as he was threatened to leave the place. 3. In the morning, the matter was reported to villagers when P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, village Pradhan, arrived at the place of occurrence. The appellant confessed before them that she has committed the murder because the deceased was a Dian. Police was informed which arrived at the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the informant at about 4.45 p.m. on 9.5.1996. The police arrested the appellant prepared the inquest report as well as weapon "Tangt" used in assault and finally submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. The appellant has remained in custody throughout. She pleaded not guilty on being tried after framing of charge on 13.9.1995. The trial Court after examining the witnesses found and held her guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to serve rigorous imprisonment for life. 4. The present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned trial Court believing upon the extra-judicial confession of the appellant has convicted her without taking into consideration the law on this point. Mr. 4. The present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned trial Court believing upon the extra-judicial confession of the appellant has convicted her without taking into consideration the law on this point. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the appellant stressed that in absence of the informant, First Information Report itself was not proved. He further pointed out that village Chowkidar, which reported the matter to Police, has not been examined nor the investigating officer in this case. Therefore, in absence of the investigating officer and any confession recorded by P.W. 5 and P.W. G, reliance should not have been placed on the extra judicial confession. He further pointed out that the seizure list of the weapon of assault and inquest report have not been brought on record. He further pointed out that even if the prosecution version is accepted the appellant should not have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code because of the fact that she assaulted the deceased having believed that she was a Dian causing death of her husband. 5. We have anxiously considered the materials on record. The prosecution in this case depends upon six witnesses. P.W. 1 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination and proved the injury on the dead body vide Ext. 1. P.W. 2 has been declared hostile. P.W. 3 was tendered. P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 have asserted that the appellant has confessed before them regarding her guilt in her house when they arrived at the place of occurrence on information. 6. Learned Amicus Curiae referred and to stress this point that such extra judicial confession require to be accepted with caution. It is submitted that when an extra judicial confession in not brought on record before the trial Court word by word and stands uncorroborated with other materials available on record, conviction based upon such extra judicial confession cannot be sustained. In their Lordships have considered this aspect at length and held that extra judicial confession even if believed is considered a very weak piece of evidence and ordinarily not accepted without independent corroboration. 7. In their Lordships have considered this aspect at length and held that extra judicial confession even if believed is considered a very weak piece of evidence and ordinarily not accepted without independent corroboration. 7. The prosecution has brought on record P.W. 2 Raja Kishku, who have declared hostile, P.W. 3 Jamadar Soren is tendered, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 who are said to have supported the story of extra judicial confession by the appellant. These witnesses are not witness of the occurrence. According to them, when they inquired from the appellant what has happened, she confessed before them that the deceased was witch and she has assaulted her with tangi. They are witnesses on the seizure list. The statements of these witnesses are not corroborated by other witnesses examined as mentioned above having been declared hostile and tendered. The informant in this case has also not been examined because he died prior to the trial of this appellant. 8. The investigating officer (P.W. 4) has supported the prosecution version and described the place of occurrence. Thereafter having been seized the weapon of assault Tangi from the room. However, he has admitted during cross- examination that he has endorsed the date of registration of the First Information Report 16.5.1995. The said Tangi has not been produced in the trial Court. It further appears from the record that when the appellant was produced by the police before the Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 16.5.1995, she has denied that her involvement in the offence. Therefore, the facts on record as per evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are concerned, the story of extra judicial confession does not get proved. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we find that the conviction of appellant Rasmuni Marandi solely on the basis of her extra judicial confession cannot be sustained. As such, we hold that the present appeal has got merit in it and deserves to be allowed. 10. In the result, the present appeal is allowed. The appellant is found not guilty of the charge levelled against her and, accordingly, acquitted from the charge. The judgment and order passed by the trial Court convicting the appellant are hereby set aside. 10. In the result, the present appeal is allowed. The appellant is found not guilty of the charge levelled against her and, accordingly, acquitted from the charge. The judgment and order passed by the trial Court convicting the appellant are hereby set aside. As appellant Rasmuni Marandi is in jail, she is directed to be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Amareshwar Sahay, J. 11. I agree.