Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1212 (JHR)

Ram Sirka v. State of Jharkhand

2012-08-13

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 23.09.2003 and 24.09.2003 respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge. Fast Track Court–II, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.03 of 2003 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the informant Kuso Kerai (PW–3) lodged a fardbayan before the Police on 14.11.2002 at 11:00 a.m. that on the previous day at about 8:00 a.m. Rauto Sirka (PW–2) and Man Singh Sirka (not–examined) came to his house and informed that the appellant had killed his wife at about 12:00 in the night by assaulting on her head with iron piece (Hal Ka Fal) and he was trying to burn her dead body by covering it by wood in his Bari. On this information the informant along with said persons went at the place of occurrence and on removal of wood they found the dead body of deceased Roibari Sirka with injuries. In the mean time the appellant came and said that as his wife was of bad character, he killed her while she was sleeping at 12:00 in the night by iron piece (Hal Ka Fal) and was trying to burn her dead body by covering it by wood. Thereafter, the appellant was caught with the help of the villagers and the Police was informed. 3. Ms. Preity Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as amicus curiae assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. She submitted that the appellant has been convicted on the basis of the testimony of a child witness and that there are major contradictions in the prosecution case and that there was no motive for the alleged occurrence and that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. and that appellant has remained in jail for about ten years. 4. On the other hand counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment. 5. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. PW 1 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found four lacerated fracture wounds on and near the head. The cause of death was injuries to the brain caused by heavy and blunt substances such as 'hal' which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. PW 1 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found four lacerated fracture wounds on and near the head. The cause of death was injuries to the brain caused by heavy and blunt substances such as 'hal' which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. He also found partially digested food in the stomach. PW 2 Rauto Sirka is the person who informed the informant about the alleged occurrence. He fully supported the prosecution case as disclosed by him to PW 3 in F.I.R. PW 3 is the informant. He also fully supported the version made in the F.I.R. PW 4 Mota Sirka is the child witness, aged about five years at the time of deposition. This witness was also examined by PW 6 under Section 164, Cr. P.C. PW 5 is the Investigating Officer. 6. It is true that PW 4 is the child witness but his capacity to understand and depose was judged by the learned trial Court. He clearly stated that his father killed his mother in the manner alleged by prosecution. Only because he said that there was no rice in the house and the Doctor found some digested food in the stomach of the deceased, his evidence cannot be disbelieved. His evidence is consistent with his statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C. After carefully considering the materials on record we find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this child witness. 7. The Investigating Officer has also fully supported the prosecution case. He found the weapon of assault at the place of occurrence. 8. Counsel for the appellant submitted that 'fal' was not sent for chemical examination and no wood with blood stain was seized by the Investigating Officer. There is nothing to show that 'fal' had blood stain. The Investigating Officer said that the place of occurrence house of the appellant was smeared with cow dung and therefore no blood stain was found at the place of occurrence. The appellant himself had disclosed the motive of the alleged occurrence and therefore it can not be said that there was no motive. It further appears that the occurrence took place in the mid night of 12-13 November. 2002. The appellant was trying to burn the dead body of the deceased by covering it by wood. The appellant himself had disclosed the motive of the alleged occurrence and therefore it can not be said that there was no motive. It further appears that the occurrence took place in the mid night of 12-13 November. 2002. The appellant was trying to burn the dead body of the deceased by covering it by wood. He was seen by the witnesses who informed the informant who happens to be mukhiya of the village. Then only the matter came to light and thus in our opinion there is no delay in lodging F.I.R. 9. After hearing the parties at length and after going through the records carefully we do not find any ground for interfering with the impugned judgment. In the result this appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.