Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1019 (JHR)

Puran Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2012-07-19

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court.— This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.8.2003 and 2.9.2003 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Bermo at Tenughat, in Sessions Trial No. 274 of 1994, convicting the appellant under Section 302/201 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the informant (P.W. 16) gave a written report to the police on 7.5.1993 to the effect that on the previous day i.e. on 6.5.1993 at about 9.30 P.M., his mother told that his sister Phulo Devi, wife of the appellant, had died, as per the information received by her from the villagers. It was also informed to her that after killing his sister, she has been hanged. The informant went and made queries, to which the appellant replied that Phulo Devi has committed suicide by hanging at about 11 A.M. in the day. When the informant asked him to show the dead body, the appellant told that the door was closed from inside. Nothing was visible from outside and the door was closed. On this, the informant asked the appellant as to how he knew that Phulo Devi has committed suicide by hanging if nothing was visible from outside and the door was closed from inside and why the informant party was not informed about the occurrence. The appellant did not give any satisfactory reply. The villagers told that Phulo Devi was not seen from the morning and about a couple of days back, there was quarrel between Phulo and her 'Sautan', due to which Phulo was assaulted by her in-laws and then she was killed and then hanged with rope. Phulo was married with the appellant about 8-9 years back. About 2-3 years thereafter, the appellant- contacted second marriage. Thereafter, there was Panchayati, in which the appellant assured that he will keep Phulo properly but even then she was tortured by the appellant and his family members, for which again there was a Panchayati on 13.5.1992, in which the appellant was not agreeable with the opinion of the mediators and started quarrelling with the informant party. The brother of the appellant signed on the Panchnama. Thereafter, due to conciliation by the family members, the appellant brought Phulo Devi to his house. In the month of February, Phulo came to her parents house. The brother of the appellant signed on the Panchnama. Thereafter, due to conciliation by the family members, the appellant brought Phulo Devi to his house. In the month of February, Phulo came to her parents house. She told about tortures done by the appellant and his family members to her. 3. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses. P.Ws. 1, 4, 7, 8 and 9 are the hostile witnesses. P.W. 5 is the tendered witness. P.W. 15 is the photographer. P.W. 17 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem. P.W. 18 is the I.O. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the evidences of the witnesses submitted that the witnesses consistently said that there was only one door in the room and it was closed from inside and in that room, Phulo was found hanging from the ceiling. Therefore, it is submitted that this is a case of suicide by her. It is further submitted that only some of the witnesses said that they saw blisters or redness on the body of Phulo Devi. It was also submitted that there was no motive for the appellant to kill his wife. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. 6. From the materials on record, the following position emerges. When the people learnt about the death of Phulo Devi, the wife of the appellant, the informant and others went to the house of the appellant. The door of the room was found closed from inside. Nothing was visible from outside. The room had only one door. But the appellant told that his wife-Phulo Devi has committed suicide by hanging in the room. Here there appears to be some doubt as to how he knew that she has committed suicide when nothing was visible from outside and the room was closed from inside. Then the I.O.-P.W. 18 also said that nothing was visible from outside and the room was closed from inside and there was no other window or ventilator in the room and there was no opening in the door from which anything could be seen from outside. However the room could be opened by putting a pressure from the bottom of the door. He also found that the body was hanging from the roof and the feet of the body was about 1/2 inch away from the ground. He also found blisters on the body. However the room could be opened by putting a pressure from the bottom of the door. He also found that the body was hanging from the roof and the feet of the body was about 1/2 inch away from the ground. He also found blisters on the body. In paragraph 8, the I.O. clearly said that it was possible to close the door from outside and make it appear that it was closed from inside. The doctor-P.W. 17 has also opined that the cause of death was extensive burn (scaled). As per the doctor, the manner of death was homicidal. He found 90% burn injuries, which could be caused by hot water on the body of the deceased. He also found multiple blisters on different parts of the body. Many of them were ruptured. However, there was no blister on the scalp and the face. The rope was found tied around swollen neck and knot was on the front. Dribble mark of slavia or any forth was not seen. Ligature mark around the neck was not prominent. 7. In view of the evidence of the doctor and the I.O., it is clear that the death was not due to hanging. It was not suicidal. It was homicidal. It was due to extensive burn (scaled). After suffering 90% burn injuries, the deceased could (sic) hang herself. The doctor did not find anything to show that she committed suicide by hanging. The I.O. found that it was possible to close the door from outside so as to appear that it has been closed from inside. This shows that the appellant hanged his wife after causing her death by burn injuries and tried to conceal the evidences and mislead the investigation. It has come in evidence that the appellant was the only person present in the house. The motive has been clearly indicated by the witnesses. The prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. After carefully going through the records and hearing the parties at length, in our opinion, no grounds are made out for interfering with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.