Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 951 (JHR)

Chanarik Mistry v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-09

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
By Court.- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.12.2001 passed by Sri Radha Govind Singh Nagesh. 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge. Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 576 of 1995 by which judgment he found the appellants guilty under Sections 3048 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo 10 years R.I. under Section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 years R.I. under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/each and in default of fine to undergo 3 months S.I. However, he directed both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of a written report given by Chaukidar 417 Lalan Manjhi of Manika Police Station on 9.1.1995 stating therein that on 9.1.1995 at about 10.00 A.M. in the morning he had gone for an inspection to Village Palheya where he got information that the daughter-in-law of. Chanarik Mistry wife of Suresh Mistry was done to death on 9.12.1994 at 10 a.m. and her dead body had been concealed by them. It is further submitted that Manorama Devi daughter of Shivnandan Mistry has stated that his son-in-law Suresh Mistry was demanding cow and buffalo as dowry and his father was not giving the same, he used to torture her. He further stated that father-in-law Chanarik Mistry, mother-in-law, Mano Devi and husband, Suresh Mistry have committed the murder of the deceased and concealed the dead body. 3. On the basis of the said written report given by Chaukidar 4/7 Lalan Manjhi of Manika Police Station the police registered a case under Sections 498A/304B/ 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet under Section 3048/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions and subsequently transferred to the Court of 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Latehar, who commenced the trial and passed the impugned order and found the appellants guilty as aforesaid. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is absolutely no evidence, although the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses, but witnesses 1, 2, 3, 7 & 9 have turned hostile while witnesses P.Ws. 6 & 7 were tendered witnesses. P.Ws. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is absolutely no evidence, although the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses, but witnesses 1, 2, 3, 7 & 9 have turned hostile while witnesses P.Ws. 6 & 7 were tendered witnesses. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 10, have stated that they saw the victim girl, Manorma Devi, who had hanged herself in her house. The Investigating Officer, who was examined as P.W. 11 also stated that the victim had committed suicide. P.W.12, is the formal witness who has proved the formal F.I.R. marked as Ext.4. The police has recovered the dead body, which was examined by the doctor P.W. 10, who stated that the cause of death is crushed injury on the right side of head caused by hard and blunt substance. The autopsy of the dead body revealed that the deceased said to have died 13 days back and further shows that the dead body recovered cannot be the dead body of Manorama Devi, who died in January, 1995. As per the informant himself, she died on 9th December, 1994 as such the conviction of the appellants by the trial court is without any evidence and the same is only fit to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no direct evidence of the fact that the deceased died a homicidal death. 6. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that although prosecution has examined 12 witnesses, but none of the witnesses have seen the occurrence nor they have seen these accused-appellants torturing and assaulting the victim, Manorama Devi for dowry. 7. P.W. 1, Sona Devi, who was declared hostile and stated that when she went to the house of deceased, Manorama Devi she found that Manorama Devi had committed suicide by hanging herself from a dharan. Her father-in-law went out for calling the Chaukidar P.W. 2, Sahbina Sibi, who was also declared hostile and stated that she saw the victim, Manorama Devi had committed suicide by hanging herself from a dharan. P.W. 3, Saibun 8ibi, who was also declared hostile and stated that on hearing Hullah from the house of Chanarik Mistry, she went there and found that wife of Suresh Mistry is hanging from dharan. The members of that family had nothing stated to her. She was also declared hostile. P.W. 3, Saibun 8ibi, who was also declared hostile and stated that on hearing Hullah from the house of Chanarik Mistry, she went there and found that wife of Suresh Mistry is hanging from dharan. The members of that family had nothing stated to her. She was also declared hostile. P.W. 4, Lalan Manjhi stated that about 1 Y2 years ago he got information that Manorama Devi had been murdered for dowry. He also stated that the accused-appellants, Chanarik Mistry, Mano Devi and Suresh Mistry had come to the deceases house in Dussahara, but the victim was not ready to go to her Sasural. Then he informed the police in writing. He proved his signature in the written report and his cross-examination he stated that he was informed about the murder by Rajendra Sao. The he went to the police station with uncle and mausa of the deceased. P.W. 5, Saida Bibi also stated that the wife of Suresh Mistry was hanging from a dharan. P.W. 7, Jaitun Bibi also stated the same and she was also declared hostile. P.W. 9, Keshwar Mistry stated that the dead body of Manorama Devi was recovered by police which was tied in a gunny bag. He proved his signature on the inquest report. He also stated that Manorama Devi was daughter of his brother-in-law 'Sarhu'. He informed about the occurrence to his father. He also stated that earlier Manorama Devi was not ready to go to her Sasural, but her husband, Suresh Mistry had taken her to his house by force. P.W. 10, Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma is doctor, who has examined the dead body on 4.2.1995 and found that the cause of death is crushed injury on right side of head caused by hard and blunt substance. Time elapsed since death is 7 to 13 days. P.W. 11, Rabindra Paswan is Investigating Officer of the case and stated that after registering the case by Lalan Manjhi he himself took the investigation and examined the place where the deceased, Manorama Devi was hanging from a dharan. Subsequently on 3.2.1995 he recovered the dead body from the tank of Baghi Dam, which was tied in a gunny bag. He proved the inquest report of the dead body. He got the post mortem and after supervision the post mortem report he filed charge-sheet. 8. Subsequently on 3.2.1995 he recovered the dead body from the tank of Baghi Dam, which was tied in a gunny bag. He proved the inquest report of the dead body. He got the post mortem and after supervision the post mortem report he filed charge-sheet. 8. Thus, after going through the prosecution evidence, I find that all P.Ws., namely, P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 have stated that on the date of occurrence 1 Y2 years ago they saw that the deceased was hanging in her house from a dharan and the sister-in-law was weeping, but none of the witnesses gave any information to the police nor the family members gave any information to the police. P.W. 9, Keshwar Mistry, who claims to be the uncle (mausa) of the deceased after coming to know about the occurrence that deceased, niece has been murdered and he informed his uncle, parents, but no F.I.R. was lodged nor the uncle was examined during trial nor the father was examined during trial. There is absolutely no evidence as to how the victim died. The F.I.R. has been lodged by a third person, who himself is a hearsay witness and stated in para 4 that he was informed by the uncle of Manorama Devi about the occurrence and he has got no personal knowledge about the same. According to the F.I.R. he claims that Manorama Devi was done to death on 9.12.1994 at about 10 a.m., out prosecution witness has failed to support that she was murdered on 9.12.1994 as stated above. The doctor, who examined the dead body recovered by the Investigating Officer had stated that the deceased did not die of hanging from a dharan, rather she died of crushed head injury and the deceased died just 713 days before and the dead body was recovered on 4.2.1995. That means the deceased died some time between 20th January, 1995 to 27th January, 1995. hence it appears that this was not the dead body of the lady, who died on 9.12.1994 as per the informant. 9. In that view of the matter, I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish any case against the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction passed by trial court is set aside. 10. The appellants are on bail, they are released from the bondage of their bail bond.