Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1280 (JHR)

Lalwati Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2015-10-13

PRAMATH PATNAIK, R.R.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of her husband Soma Lohra. The trial Court, having found the charge being proved beyond all reasonable doubt convicted the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated 31.5.2006 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life vide its order dated 1.6.2006. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that, on the day of occurrence Santosh Kumar Lohra PW-1, the son of the deceased had slept in a room along with his father Soma Lohra (deceased) and mother Lalwati Devi. Upon hearing sound of altercation, he woke up and saw his mother assaulting his father with tangi. His father sustained injuries over his mouth, neck and left hand, as a result of which he died. Said Santosh Kumar Lohra PW-1 immediately rushed to inform Jatti Devi PW-6, the sister of the appellant. Jatti Devi on hearing this, came to the house of the Soma Lohra and found him dead. 3. One Ram Awadh Paswan PW-8 posted as S.I. of Police at Basia Police Station, when came to know about the said incident came to the house of the deceased and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.6) of Jatti Devi PW-6 wherein she narrated about the incident as has been stated above. Thereafter, he took over the investigation, during which he held inquest on the dead body and prepared an inquest report (Ext.7). The I.O. also seized tangi from the said room where the occurrence had taken place under seizure list (Ext.8). 4. Meanwhile, the I.O. sent the dead body for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Manvendra Kumar Singh PW-5, who on holding autopsy did find following injuries:- (i) One sharp cutting injury on right side of neck involving left part of mandible. Size 5" x 2" x 2½". Mandible completely cut near angle. All important blood vessels on right side of neck were found cut completely. (ii) One sharp cut wound behind lower lobe of right pinna involving right mastoid antrium and occiput, size 3" x 1" x bone deep. Right mastroid antrium and occiput bone were cut. (iii) One incised wound on thinner emminence of left palm. Size 1¼" x ¼" x ½". The doctor issued postmortem report (Ext.3) with an opinion that the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock on account of aforesaid injuries. 5. Right mastroid antrium and occiput bone were cut. (iii) One incised wound on thinner emminence of left palm. Size 1¼" x ¼" x ½". The doctor issued postmortem report (Ext.3) with an opinion that the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock on account of aforesaid injuries. 5. On completion of the investigation, when the charge-sheet was submitted the court took cognizance of the offence against the appellant. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial. 6. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Of them, PW-1 is Santosh Kumar Lohra, an eye witness who did testify that while he was sleeping in the room along with his father and mother, he woke up on hearing sound of altercation and found mother assaulting his father with tangi as a result of which his father sustained injuries over his mouth, neck and left hand resulting into his death. PW-2 Jagarnath Lohra, the brother of the appellant has testified that upon knowing that Soma Lohra has been done to death when he went to the house, he found the appellant present, who confessed before him that it was she who has committed murder of her husband. PW-3 Rasu Lohra, PW-6 Smt. Jatti Devi (informant), PW-7 Harman Munda are the hearsay witnesses who derived knowledge about the occurrence either from the Santosh Kumar Lohra PW-1 or from other person. 7. On closure of the prosecution case, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. over the incriminating evidences appearing against her, she denied. Thereafter, the trial court by placing its implicit reliance on the testimony of Santosh Kumar Lohra PW-1, the son of the appellant getting corroboration from the medical evidence and also from the evidence of PW-2 Jagarnath Lohra before whom the appellant made extra judicial confession, did find the appellant guilty and accordingly, recorded the order of conviction and sentence, which is under challenge. 8. Ms. 8. Ms. Alpana Verma, learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae submits that it is true that the appellant is none other than the wife of the deceased, who has been alleged to have killed her husband and it was PW-1 Santosh Kumar Lohra who saw the appellant killing her husband, as PW-1 Santosh Kumar Lohra has claimed to have been sleeping along with his father and mother, but, apart from him, the deceased and the appellant were having other children, who as per the evidence of PW-1-Santosh Kumar Lohra were also sleeping in the house, but not a single witness has whispered about their presence and this leads to suspicion that PW-1 Santosh Kumar Lohra may have been tutored by someone interested in the matter and thereby, the court should not have placed its reliance on the sole testimony of the witness for recording the order of conviction and sentence. 9. As against this Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that as per the evidence of PW-1 Santosh Kumar Lohra, he was sleeping along with his father and mother. It may be that he may have other brother and sister, who as per the evidence of PW-1 were not sleeping in the room in which he had slept along with father and mother and thereby, they never appear to be material witness and as such their non-examination never affects the case of the prosecution adversely in any manner and that there has been no reason to discard the testimony of PW-1 Santosh Kumar Lohra, who happens to be the son of the deceased and also the appellant and that after seeing the occurrence he immediately rushed to PW-6 Jatti Devi, who happens to be the Mousi of PW-1 Santosh Kumar Lohra and under the circumstances, the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence. 10. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the State as nothing has been elicited from PW-1 Santosh Kumar Lohra, the son of the deceased and the appellant so as to create even slightest of the doubt over the trustworthiness of his evidence. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the State as nothing has been elicited from PW-1 Santosh Kumar Lohra, the son of the deceased and the appellant so as to create even slightest of the doubt over the trustworthiness of his evidence. PW-1 Santosh Kumar Lohra, is quite categorical that while he was sleeping along with his father and mother, he woke up on hearing sound of altercation and saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with tangi, as a result of which the deceased sustained injury over his mouth, neck and hand. The deceased died immediately. Thereafter, PW-1 Santosh Kumar Lohra informed to Smt. Jatti Devi PW-6, the sister of the appellant who came and found the deceased dead and then gave her fardbeyan. 11. Under the circumstances, there does not appear to be any reason not to believe the testimony of PW-1 Santosh Kumar Lohra, whose testimony gets corroboration from the medical evidence as the doctor did find injuries over the neck, mouth and hand and that apart the evidence of PW-1 further gets support from the evidence of PW-2 who did testify that the appellant confessed before him that she has killed her husband. So far as submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is concerned, we do not find any merit in it as it has never been elicited from any of the witnesses that other than PW-1 other sisters and brothers of PW-1were also sleeping in that room. If the other brothers and sisters were not sleeping in the room in which occurrence took place, the case of the prosecution gets hardly affected on account of non-examination of those persons. 12. Thus, we do find that the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence and hence, it is hereby affirmed. 13. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.