Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1463 (JHR)

Shibu Bhumij v. State of Bihar

2008-12-17

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, R.R.PRASAD

body2008
JUDGMENT : The sole appellant Shibu Bhumij was put on trial for the charges under sections 302, 201 and 75 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the appellant did commit murder of Most. Pyari Hansda and got the evidence of murder disappeared in order to screen himself from legal punishment. The trial court having found the appellant guilty for the charges sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that the informant Gopi Nath Sah (P.W.4) had allowed one widow, namely, Most. Pyari Hansda (deceased) to live in his small house situated at village Gerua for taking care of the house whereas appellant who was looking after the farming of the informant was living in the back portion of that house. On 18.12.1989 Harbans Sah (P.W.5) informed him that Most. Pyari Hansda on being burnt has been lying dead in the room. Upon it, he came over there and found upper portion of the body burnt. He also found rice and meat kept over there in a vessel and tiffin box. Under this circumstance, he suspected somebody’s hand in the murder of the deceased and, therefore, he asked this appellant, who was living in the back portion of that house about the occurrence. Thereupon, it was informed by him that it was he, who had given rice and meat to the deceased to eat but subsequently when he smelt something burning, he came and saw through a window that the deceased was lying burnt over the hearth. Thereupon, he entered into the room through window and found her dead and then he informed about it to Harbans Sah (P.W.5), who informed him and then he came to the place of occurrence. Meanwhile, Jagta Nand Tiwary (P.W.7), the then Officer In-charge of Patamda police station on getting the information of the aforesaid occurrence came to the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.3) of the P.W.4. Upon it, first information report (Ext.6) was drawn. Investigation on being taken by him, he made inquest on the dead body and prepared an inquest report (Ext.4) . He also seized wooden roller (Belna) meant for rolling bread from the place of occurrence under a seizure list (Ext.5). Upon it, first information report (Ext.6) was drawn. Investigation on being taken by him, he made inquest on the dead body and prepared an inquest report (Ext.4) . He also seized wooden roller (Belna) meant for rolling bread from the place of occurrence under a seizure list (Ext.5). Thereupon, dead body was sent for post mortem examination. On receiving dead body, Dr. Tulsi Mahto (P.W.3) held autopsy on the dead body and found the following injuries: External Injury : (a) Abrasion 2 cm x ½ cm. on the right thigh lower part. (b) Superficial burn injuries over the entire body surface except both lower extremities Internal Injury : Contusion on left side of lung and adjoining chest wall fracture of 2 to 9 ribs of left side. There was profused bleeding in the left side of chest cavity – 4 to 7 ribs of right side were also found fractured. 3. Dr. issued post mortem examination report (Ext.2) with an opinion that all the injuries are ante mortem in nature caused by hard and blunt substance except the burn injury which was found to be post mortem in nature. 4. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant whereupon cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course, when the case was committed to the course of sessions, charges were framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Of them P.W.1 Ram Kishun Ram is a witness to seizure of wooden roller, P.W.2 Paresh Chandra Mandal has been tendered. Informant Gopi Nath Sah and his brother HarbansSah were examined as P.Ws. 4 and 5 6. The trial court did convict the appellant on the premise that the accused, who had been convicted under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code would have come to the room of the deceased to satisfy his sexual lust and on being failed in satisfying his lust, he may have assaulted the deceased with wooden roller, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fracture of ribs resulting into her death and then set her ablaze in order to screen his guilt. 7. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 8. 7. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it does appear that the informant (P.W.4) has testified that he had allowed the deceased to live in the house at village Gerua, who when was found dead, by his brother Harbans Sah (P.W.5) he informed him. Thereupon he came at the place of occurrence where he found her burnt and was lying dead. There he also found rice and meat kept in a vessel and tiffin box. On being asked the appellant disclosed that it was he, who had given rice and meat but subsequently when he smelt something burning, he came and found the deceased lying and then entered into the room through a window and found her dead. According to P.W.5 when he found the deceased being burnt to death, he informed to the informant, P.W.4. 9. Thus, evidences as extracted above never even suggest that the appellant was having lust for sex but still that was taken to be motive and the learned trial court even went on presuming that when the deceased did not allow the appellant to satisfy his lust, the deceased was done to death but this is all presumption as neither there has been any ocular evidence nor there is any circumstantial evidence suggesting that it was the appellant who did assault the deceased, as a result of which she died. It be stated here that, as per the case of the prosecution, the appellant was also living in the same room where the deceased was living but 2-2-½ months before, there was some altercation and, thereafter, the appellant started living in the back portion of the house. Even if that fact is accepted to be true, altercation seems to have taken place over a very trivial matter for cooking of the food which might have resulted into animosity but that never appears to be of that extent which may have tempted him to commit offence. Thus, I do find that there has been absolutely no evidence either ocular or circumstantial for proving charges levelled against the appellant. 10. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence passed by nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T. No.208 of 1990 is hereby set aside. Thus, I do find that there has been absolutely no evidence either ocular or circumstantial for proving charges levelled against the appellant. 10. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence passed by nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T. No.208 of 1990 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of all the charges and is discharged from the liability of the bail bond. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed.