Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 549 (PAT)

Sabita Devi v. State of Bihar

2012-04-02

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT Per A.K. Lal, J.-The appellant Sabita Devi has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 52/1988 by which she has been convicted and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.08.1987, the informant Kishore Mahto (PW 3) had gone to work in the field. His wife Kabutari Devi (PW 6) had also gone out to scrap grass in the field. She was accompanied by Kusum Kumari (PW 2), the daughter of Bahadur Mahto, another brother of the informant. Kabutari Devi (PW 6) had eleven months old son in her lap and four years old daughter Belwanti Kumari (PW 1). At 9.00 a.m., Kabutari Devi (PW 6) went to the field to scrap grass leaving her eleven months old son under the mango tree in front of her house in the supervision of her daughter Belwanti Kumari (PW 1) aged about 4 years. Sabita Devi (appellant), the wife of the accused Krit Mahto (since acquitted) was alone in the house as adult member. At about 9.30 a.m., Belwanti Kumari (PW 1) went to her mother Kabutari Devi (PW 6) and informed her that the appellant was sinking the child in the water contained in 'Nad'. PW 6 returned to her house, the informant was also given this information by his niece Kusum Kumari (PW 2) that his son died as the wife of Krit (appellant) caused the death of his son. The informant also rushed to his house and saw that Krit Mahto (since acquitted) and his wife (appellant) were escaping. The informant found that his son was dead and his wife was weeping keeping the child in her lap. Many co-villagers such as Komal Mahto, Alakh Mahto, Chand Mahto (none of them examined) came there and saw his son dead. The reason for the occurrence is that Krit Mahto, the brother of the informant wanted that the informant should leave the house. 10 days prior to the occurrence, Krit Mahto had made altercation and assaulted the informant and due to the land dispute, the appellant and her husband caused the death of his son. The reason for the occurrence is that Krit Mahto, the brother of the informant wanted that the informant should leave the house. 10 days prior to the occurrence, Krit Mahto had made altercation and assaulted the informant and due to the land dispute, the appellant and her husband caused the death of his son. The fard beyan of the informant was recorded at the Deokund police station in the district of Aurangabad on 13.08.1987 and thereafter, the Deokund P.S. Case No. 12/1987 was instituted against the appellant and her husband Krit Mahto under Section 302 of the I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellant and her husband Krit Mahto were charged for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. to which they denied and claimed to be tried. As such, both of them were tried together. After the trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. as aforesaid and her husband Krit Mahto was acquitted. 3. The defence of the accused is that the little boy (Yogendra) was playing on the road by the western side of the house. It was Thursday, the Mela day at Deokund. Numbers of vehicles like Rickshaw, bullock carts were passing through the said road. The child was knocked down by a loaded rickshaw and was crushed by the rear wheel of the rickshaw which proved fatal. At the relevant time, the appellant, the wife of the accused Krit Mahto was engaged in transplanting paddy and her husband was working in the field at Mimli Bigha, one mile away from the village and her husband was playing field at some distance from the house. They came to the house after getting the information and have been falsely implicated due to enmity. 4. This Court is required to reappraise and to see as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its case beyond reasonable doubts. 5. The prosecution has examined six witnesses to prove its case. They are namely, PW 1 Belwanti Kumari, PW 2 Kusum Kumari, PW 3 Kishore Mahto, PW 4 Dr. Nand Kishore Prasad, PW 5 Rameshwar Trivedi and PW 6 Kabutari Devi. 6. The defence has also examined three witnesses. They are namely, D.W.1 Jagdeo Mahto, D.W.2 Ramdeo Mahto and D.W.3 Arjun. 7. They are namely, PW 1 Belwanti Kumari, PW 2 Kusum Kumari, PW 3 Kishore Mahto, PW 4 Dr. Nand Kishore Prasad, PW 5 Rameshwar Trivedi and PW 6 Kabutari Devi. 6. The defence has also examined three witnesses. They are namely, D.W.1 Jagdeo Mahto, D.W.2 Ramdeo Mahto and D.W.3 Arjun. 7. PW 1 Belwanti Kumari, aged about five years, the daughter of the informant has stated that the mother of Arjun (appellant) caused the death of his brother by sinking him in the 'Nad'. She was entertaining her brother. Her mother (PW 6) had gone to scrap grass. She informed her mother. Kusum Kumari (PW 2) had also gone to scrap grass with her mother (PW 6). In her cross-examination, she has stated that she lives in her house with her parents and brother. She was playing on the darwaja outside the house. No other person was playing there. Babua (deceased) entered in the house. Kusmi came her mother and her father also came and the co-villager also came there. It has been noted by the learned trial Court that the witness has power of understanding, but she nods her head in reply to the queries. 8. PW 2 Kusum Kumari is also aged about 11 years and she has stated that Kishori Mahto (informant) is he uncle. He had a son, aged about one year. He was caused to death. She had gone to scrap gross with her aunt (PW 6). The child (deceased) was sleeping in the courtyard. Belwanti (PW 1) was entertaining the child. Belwanti told them that the child was killed by the wife of Krit (appellant) by putting him in 'Nad'. Thereafter, she and PW 6 returned to their house and saw that the child was lying dead on a cot. She informed her uncle Kishori Mahto (PW 3) about the occurrence, who was working in the field. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that at some distance after 2-3 plots of land, she had gone to scrap grass. 9. PW 3 Kishori Mahto is the informant in this case and he has identified his signature on the fard beyan (Ext. 1). He has stated that he had a son aged about 11 months, who died at about 9.00 a.m. on the date of occurrence. He had gone to work in the field. 9. PW 3 Kishori Mahto is the informant in this case and he has identified his signature on the fard beyan (Ext. 1). He has stated that he had a son aged about 11 months, who died at about 9.00 a.m. on the date of occurrence. He had gone to work in the field. His niece Kusum Kumari (PW 2) informed him that 'naiki chachi (appellant) caused the death of his son. He returned to his house and saw that his son was lying dead on the cot and his wife was weeping. He has stated that his wife Kabutari (PW 6) had gone to scrap grass with PW 2. His daughter Belwanti (PW 1) was entertaining in his son. Belwanti informed her mother (PW6) that the appellant caused the death of his son by pressing her neck and sank him in the 'Nad'. He had seen Krit and his wife (appellant) going out from the house when he was returning to his house. It appears that PW 3 has deviated from his statement in the fard beyan. 10. PW 4 Dr. Nand Kishore Prasad has held the post-mortem examination on the dead boy of Yogendra, the son of Kishori Mahto (PW 3) at 11.50 a.m. identified by Constable and Kishori Mahto (PW 3) and found the following : Face and eye lids were swollen and congested and bluish looking. No other external sign of injury was present. There was mud on the forehead and both feet. Soles were sodden. On dissection of the back left corno of hyoid bone was found fractured. There was effusion of blood in the trachea. On dissection of the chest lungs were not swellen and doughy. On cutting of the lungs no water or froth were coming out from the surface even on applying sufficient pressure. There was no presence of foreign body and water in the stomach except undigested rice and pulse. The cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. He has also stated that when the child was in the water he was not alive. The external injuries referred to above was ante-mortem. Time elapsed since death within 36 hours at the time holding post-mortem examination. He has proved the postmortem examination report (Ext.2). 11. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not find any external injury on the neck. The external injuries referred to above was ante-mortem. Time elapsed since death within 36 hours at the time holding post-mortem examination. He has proved the postmortem examination report (Ext.2). 11. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not find any external injury on the neck. No external injury on the chest was found either Asphyxia can be caused by different means. He has further stated that corno of hyoid bone is cartilagenous and bonel part. Corno of hyoid bone cannot be fractured by ordinary or simple pressure. It cannot be fractured by placing laties on both ends of the neck. It can be fractured by applying pressure by hand. It is not necessary that if pressure is applied by hand on the neck to the extent of fracturing the hyoid bone trachea. It will leave its external marks on the neck. Trachea is cartilagenous part. Hyoid bone and trachea are flexible. There was no damage to the vertebral column of the neck. Hyoid bone and trachea can be fractured by applying pressure by hand and blunt substance. There was no decomposition of the dead body. Rigour mortis was present. It is not mentioned in the postmortem report whether the rigour mortise was present over the whole body or only a part of it. Rigour mortis starts within 3-6 hours of death and it disappears within generally 48 hours after. The disappearance of the rigour mortis starts after 36 hours. The disappearance of the rigour mortis does not start after 18 hours, or after 24 hours. It Cannot start vanishing before 36 hours. The age of the deceased was about one year. The deceased was a male child. 12. PW 6 Kabutari Devi is the mother of the deceased and the wife of the informant. She has stated that she had gone to scrap grass by leaving her son Yogendra aged about 11 months in the lap of his daughter Belwanti (PW 1). Belwanti told her that the appellant killed him and sank in the 'Nad' and thereafter led her on the cot. She returned to her house and saw her son was lying dead. At that time, the appellant was present at the house. The husband of the appellant came there. Thereafter, she went out from the house. Many persons came to the place of occurrence. 13. PW 5 Rameshwar Trivedi is the Investigating Officer. She returned to her house and saw her son was lying dead. At that time, the appellant was present at the house. The husband of the appellant came there. Thereafter, she went out from the house. Many persons came to the place of occurrence. 13. PW 5 Rameshwar Trivedi is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that the informant came to the police station and gave his beyan. The fard beyan is in his writing and signature, which has been marked as Ext. 1/1. He went to the place of occurrence at about 5.30 p.m. on 13.08.1987. The place of occurrence was the house of the informant and the accused. He was told that in the eastern side of the house, there was a cot and the child (deceased) was sleeping there. There was no flank in the house. There was a big courtyard. The 'Nad' was also found there. The inquest report, which is not on the record, was prepared by him and his dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not find any material on the place of occurrence to be noted. He took the statement of Kabutari Devi (PW 6), Dhanajo Devi, Maheshwari Devi (both not examined), Jagdeo Mahto (D.W.1), Shankar Mahto, Komal Mahto, Alakh Mahto (none of them examined). He has further stated that Kishore Mahto (PW 3) had not stated in his beyan that the child was killed by pressing neck. He has also not stated that his wife (PW 6) got the child sleep and she went to scrap grass. 14. D.W.1 Jagdeo Mahto is the father of the informant and the grand father of Yogendra (deceased). He has stated that he has seven sons. Kishore Mahto (PW 3) and Ramkrti Mahto (accused) are also his sons. All his sons are separate and they have separated by giving equal shares. The informant had only been given the thatched house and the other sons have been given tiled roof house and Kishori had complain due to this reason. On the date of occurrence, he was in the field. His sons were also working there. At about 11.00 a.m., his son Raj Bahadur (not examined) went there and told that the son of Kishori died due to crushing. They returned to their house, by that time, Kishori (PW 3) had taken his son to the doctor. On the date of occurrence, he was in the field. His sons were also working there. At about 11.00 a.m., his son Raj Bahadur (not examined) went there and told that the son of Kishori died due to crushing. They returned to their house, by that time, Kishori (PW 3) had taken his son to the doctor. On the date of occurrence, there was mela, which was Thursday, the date of mela at Deokund. In his cross-examination, he has stated before the police officer that the deceased died due to crush. He does not remember as to whether he has stated before the police that the child was crushed by the wheel of rickshaw. 15. D.W.2 is of another village and has stated that on the date of occurrence, he was planting paddy sidling, which continued till about 2.00 p.m. and he came to know that the Krit Mahto (accused) was also working in the field. 16. D.W.3 Arjun Mahto is aged about 8 years, son of the appellant. He has stated that at the time of occurrence, he, his mother, his father were also working in the field. His uncle (PW 3) and his aunt had also gone to work in the field. The son and daughter of Kishori were playing in the western side of the house. The son of Kishori (PW 3) came under the wheel of Rickshaw. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW 1 Belwanti Kumari aged about 4 years is the only eyewitness to the occurrence and other witnesses are the hearsay. 18. He has further submitted that according to the prosecution case, the deceased was caused to death by sinking in the 'Nad' and thereafter he was put on the cot. The medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case. The prosecution has not been able to prove the manner of occurrence. 19. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is correct. The prosecution case is that Yogendra, an eleven months child of the informant was caused to death by the appellant and her husband by sinking the child in water (Nad) and thereafter put him on the cot. The prosecution case is that Yogendra, an eleven months child of the informant was caused to death by the appellant and her husband by sinking the child in water (Nad) and thereafter put him on the cot. PW 4 has held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and he has found that the deceased did not die due to sinking in the water as no water was found in the lungs or in the stomach and it does not corroborate the prosecution evidence. PW 1, aged about four years, is the only eye-witness to the occurrence, who has informed her mother PW 6 Kabutari Devi about the death of the child caused by the appellant. D.W.1 Jagdeo Mahto has also been examined by the I.O. D.W.1 is the father of the informant and grand father of the deceased. He has also not supported the manner of occurrence of the prosecution case. 20. It appears that the appellant has been examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and he has been asked that it is said that on 13.08.1987, he sank the son of Kishori Mahto in the Nad and thus caused his death, but during the trial, the witnesses have stated that the deceased was killed, thereafter; he was put in the 'Nad'. This circumstance of causing death has not been explained to the appellant. 21. It is settled principle of law that the circumstances not put to the accused cannot be used again him. A reference may be made to a decision in the case of Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 : AIR 1984 SC 1622 . It is better to quote paragraph 143 of the said decision; "143. Apart from the aforesaid comments there is one vital defect in some of the circumstances mentioned above and relied upon by the High Court, viz., circumstances Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17. As these circumstances were not put to the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code they must be completely excluded from consideration because the appellant did not have any chance to explain them. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17. As these circumstances were not put to the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code they must be completely excluded from consideration because the appellant did not have any chance to explain them. This has been consistently held by this Court as far back as 1953 where in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court held that any circumstance in respect of which an accused was not examined under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be used against him. Ever since this decision, there is a catena of authorities of this Court uniformly taking the view that unless the circumstance appearing against an accused is put to him in Ws examination under Section 342 of the old Code (corresponding to Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the same cannot be used against him. In Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 438 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 56, this Court held thus : "The fact that the appellant was said to be absconding not having been put to him under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, could not be used against him." 22. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, we find and hold that the prosecution has failed to substantiate its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The appellant is entitled to get, the benefit of doubts. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted by giving her the benefit of doubts. As the appellant is on bail, she is discharged from the liabilities of her bail bonds. 23. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.