Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1079 (JHR)

Gudra Murmu v. State of Jharkhand

2010-12-15

R.R.PRASAD, SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2010
Judgment By Court-Four accused including two appellants of this appeal were put up for trial under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Two other accused were acquitted on benefit of doubt while the two appellants of this appeal have been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. to life imprisonment, without imposing the mandatory sentence of fine. Further although they have been found guilty under Section 201/34 I.P.C also, but no sentence has been awarded by the trial Court on that count. 2. The trial Court was on the face of it wrong in not awarding mandatory fine and also not awarding separate sentence under Section 201 I.P.C. The name of the learned Judge of the trial Court is Mr. Vinay Kumar Sinha. It is recommended that a copy of the order be sent to the said officer for his guidance so that he may read at least the statutes involved in the cases being decided by him. 3. The prosecution in this case is well-based on circumstantial evidence. There being no eye witness. 4. The wife of the deceased lodged an F.I.R. at 8.30 a.m. on 10.9.1993 that there were dispute between the deceased husband of the informant and his brother who are the appellants in this appeal. The informant says in the F.I.R that she came to know that there was some altercation between her husband and the husband's brother at a liquor shop and, thereafter, it was not known where her husband has gone. When her husband did not return back till Wednesday she requested the Gram Pradhan, P.W. 5 to find whereabouts of her husband. The Gram Pradhan called a meeting on Thursday, i.e. 9.9.1993 in which apart from the Gram Pradhari P.W.5 three other persons were present, namely. P.W.2. P.W.3 and P.W.6 in whose presence one of the appellants made a confession that the accused had murdered the husband of the informant and had thrown the dead body in a well after tying a rope and stones in the neck of the deceased. Subsequently, the' villagers went to the well and saw a dead body which was submerged in water, excluding one foot which was projecting out of the water. Since it had become dark, the body was taken out of the well next day and the police was informed. Subsequently, the' villagers went to the well and saw a dead body which was submerged in water, excluding one foot which was projecting out of the water. Since it had become dark, the body was taken out of the well next day and the police was informed. Thus, the circumstances, on the basis of which the trial Court has convicted the accused are: (1) The alleged background dispute between the deceased and the appellants. (2) The alleged extra-judicial confession by one of the appellants, and (3) The discovery and recovery of the body allegedly based upon the extra-judicial confession. 5. So far as the first circumstance is concerned, we find from the evidence that the dispute was between the family members. Both the appellants and the deceased are brothers and the alleged dispute does not appear to have been serious enough because admittedly appellants and the deceased went together to wine house for having drink together on the day of the incident. Thus, the alleged motive does not appear to be strong enough for committing murder. In case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. 6. So far the second circumstance is concerned. Court has to be satisfied that the extra-judicial confession is voluntary and true. For this, accuracy of the extrajudicial confession must be checked carefully and it should also be seen whether it is so reliable as to form an independent basis of conviction. It should normally find corroboration from other independent and reliable evidence. 7. We find that there is no accurate reproduction of the alleged extra-judicial confession. In fact, there is variance between the witnesses on the point, from the version of the confession given in the F.I.R. According to the F.I.R., the husband's elder brother (Bhainsur) had made the extra-judicial confession whereas the Gram Pradhan, PW-5 says that both the appellants had made the extra-judicial confession. There does not appear to be any occasion on the part of two accused, or for that matter any of them, to have made the confession. There does not appear to be any occasion on the part of two accused, or for that matter any of them, to have made the confession. Corroboration of the extra judicial confession could have been obtained from the discovery and recovery of the dead body, but admittedly the body had been thrown into the well which was of a local mission and admittedly at least one leg of the dead body was projecting out of the water, which would mean that it is not a case where the body was so well concealed that nobody was likely to discover it except on the basis of the confession leading to the discovery. We therefore find it a little difficult to accept that the extra-judicial confession is reliable beyond reasonable doubt, so as to sustain the conviction and life imprisonment either on its own strength or with independent corroboration. 8. We find a suggestion to P.W.5 in the cross-examination that wife of the deceased shortly after the murder of her husband had remarried another person who was quite affluent. This has been admitted by the witness P.W.5 in paragraph-6 of the cross-examination. However, the said witness has denied the suggestion that the second husband of the informant used to visit the informant from earlier. The informant has not entered the witness box. The investigating officer has also not been examined by the prosecution. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the appellant are entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the appellants named above are acquitted of the charges. They are in jail since 2001 as there bail was refused during pendency of this appeal. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other matter.