Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1340 (JHR)

Ram Barat Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2015-10-28

PRAMATH PATNAIK, R.R.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT : Appellant-Ram Barat Chaudhary was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of his wife-Pramila Devi. The trial court having found the appellant guilty of the charge convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated 28.4.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2003 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide order dated 28.4.2006. 2. The case of the prosecution, as has been projected under fardbeyan (Ext.3) made by the informant-Balmukund Chaudhary (P.W.6), is that Pramila Devi, daughter of Balmukund Chaudhary-the informant (P.W.6), had been married to this appellant nine years ago and was living at her in-laws' place with the appellant at Village-Gangi. On the occasion of Chhath festival, Pramila Devi had come to the place of the informant on 8.11.2002 and returned to her in-laws' place on 11.11.2002 when the festival was over. On 18.11.2002 Anil Chaudhary (P.W.2)-step son of Pramila Devi came to the house of the informant and informed that in the morning at about 6 O'clock his father (appellant) has killed his step mother (Pramila Devi). On getting such information, the informant-Balmukund Chaudhary (P.W.6) rushed to the village along with others and when came to the house of the appellant, he saw the dead-body of his daughter-Pramila Devi outside of the house of the appellant having injuries on her person. There, the villagers had caught hold of the appellant who confessed his guilt before the villagers. Meanwhile, Kumar Saryu Anand, Officer Incharge of Chainpur police station, who had gone to Village-Purwadiha in connection with the investigation of another case, when received information at about 10:15 am that one woman has been killed at village-Gangi by her husband (appellant), came to Village-Gangi and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.3) of the informant-Balmukund Chaudhary (P.W.6) at about 11 am, wherein he narrated about the incident, as has been stated above. The motive of the occurrence stated by the informant is that the appellant killed his wife-Pramila Devi, as he wanted to marry another woman. 3. On the basis of such fardbeyan, a formal FIR was drawn and a case was registered against the appellant. The motive of the occurrence stated by the informant is that the appellant killed his wife-Pramila Devi, as he wanted to marry another woman. 3. On the basis of such fardbeyan, a formal FIR was drawn and a case was registered against the appellant. P.W.11-Investigating Officer himself took up the investigation during which he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant which led to recovery of a 'Patti' (wooden part of a cot) a weapon used in the commission of offence of murder, from the field. The said confessional statement leading to recovery of said 'Patti' has been proved as Ext.6. The Investigating Officer upon recovery of the said wooden piece called 'Patti' (part of cot) got it seized under Ext.5/1. The Investigating Officer also seized the earth smeared with blood under Seizure List (Ext.5). Upon holding inquest on the dead-body of the deceased, the Investigating Officer prepared an inquest report (Ext.4) whereupon the dead-body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Ranjan Kumar Singh-P.W.12 who upon holding autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased found the following injuries:- i. Lacerated wound 1” x ¼” x skin deep over left middle finger at proximal phalange on dorsal surface. ii. Bruise on left lower jaw with fracture of body of mandible on left side, loosening of teeth of left lower jaw. iii. Lacerated wound 1½” x ½” x bone deep over left pre-auricular region. iv. Lacerated wound 1” x ½” x communicating to oral cavity on left cheek. v. Lacerated wound 2” x ½” x bone deep over left temporal region. vi. Lacerated wound 3” x ½” x bone deep over occipital region. Upon dissection i. Fracture of skull over left temporal region and occipital region was found. Blood and blood clots were found inside cranial cavity. 4. The doctor issued postmortem examination report (Ext.7) with an opinion that the death occured on account of shock and haemorrhage due to above ante-mortem injuries caused by hard and blunt substance such as some edged weapon like a 'Patti' of a cot. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. 5. On completion of the investigation, when the charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant and in due course, when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial. 6. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. 5. On completion of the investigation, when the charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant and in due course, when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial. 6. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 12 witnesses. Of them, P.W. 1-Niranjan Chaudhary, P.W. 4-Ram Ratan Chaudhary and P.W. 7-Jagarnath Chaudhary did testify that when they came to know that Pramila Devi has been done to death, they came to the house of the appellant where they did find the dead-body lying outside of the house and number of injuries were there on the person of the deceased. There, the villagers had caught hold of the appellant. The appellant confessed before them that he had killed his wife (Pramila Devi) by a 'Patti' 'Patti' (wooden part of a cot). P.W. 6-Bal Mukund Chaudhary (informant) did testify in the same manner as he had made statement in his fardbeyan. He did also testify that the appellant confessed before him and before the villagers including the witnesses that he had killed his wife by assaulting her through a 'Patti'. Other witnesses i.e. P.W. 2-Anil Kumar Chaudhary, P.W. 3-Rita Devi, P.W. 5-Nandu Chaudhary, P.W. 8-Surendra Chaudhary, P.W. 9-Sanju Chaudhary and P.W. 10-Amresh Mallah have turned hostile, as they did not support their earlier statements made before the police. 7. After closure of the prosecution case, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. over the incriminating evidences appearing against him, he denied. 8. Thereupon, the trial court taking into account the fact that it was the appellant who voluntarily confessed his guilt before the villagers including the witnesses that it was he who had killed his wife (Pramila Devi) by making assault through a 'Patti', which 'Patti' was recovered at the instance of the appellant, who killed his wife, as he intended to marry another woman, found the appellant guilty and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, which is under challenge. 9. Mrs. 9. Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay, learned counsel, appointed as Amicus Curiae, submits that the conviction of the appellant is based on the extra judicial confession made by the appellant wherein he confessed that he did assault his wife with a piece of 'Patti' as a result of which she died and that piece of 'Patti' was recovered at the instance of the appellant but the prosecution failed to produce it before the court and thereby that should not have been taken into account by the court in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant. If that part of the case of prosecution is excluded, the only thing, which would remain, would be extra judicial confession which can not alone be the basis for conviction of a person and thereby the trial court did commit illegality in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant which is fit to be set aside. 10. As against this, Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned counsel for the State, submits that the appellant did confess his guilt before the villagers, including the witnesses, which appears to be voluntary one and thereby that can be acted upon, as the same happens to be an admissible piece of evidence. That apart, the confession made by the appellant led to recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence of murder at the instance of the appellant and thereby it is also admissible, though 'Patti' used in the commission of the offence of murder was not produced but it hardly affects the case of the prosecution, as apart from the Investigating Officer other witnesses have also admitted that said 'Patti' (wooden part of a cot) was recovered in his presence and thereby it gets fully established that the weapon-'Patti' used in the commission of the offence was recovered at the instance of the appellant. That apart, the motive, which was assigned by the prosecution, has also been proved, as all the witnesses did testify that the appellant committed murder of his wife, as the appellant intended to marry another woman and under the circumstances, the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant which never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 11. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, we do find that it is the case of the prosecution as has been testified by the P.W. 1-Niranjan Chaudhary, P.W. 4-Ram Ratan Chaudhary, P.W.6-Balmukund Chaudhary (informant) and P.W. 7-Jagarnath Chaudhary that when they came to know that Pramila Devi- daughter of the informant has been killed, they came to the house of the appellant where they did find the dead-body of the deceased-Pramila Devi lying outside of the house and the deceased-Pramila Devi was having several injuries on her person. There the villagers were also present who had caught hold of the appellant who before the villagers including the witnesses confessed that it was he (appellant) who by assaulting the deceased with 'Patti' killed her (Pramila Devi). From the evidences of the aforesaid witnesses, it is apparent that the appellant confessed voluntarily before the villagers including the witnesses that he committed murder of his wife. Nothing seems to be there in the cross-examination of those witnesses so as to form an opinion that the appellant was subjected to any kind of force before he confessed his guilt. Thus, there appears to be no hesitation in holding that the confession has been made by the appellant voluntarily. Further, it does appear that after the appellant made confession before the villagers, the police arrived at the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.3) of the informant-Balmukund Chaudhary (P.W.6). There he did find that the appellant's presence who was in the custody of the villagers and again he made confession before the police which was reduced in writing (Ext.6). In that course, he also disclosed about the place where the weapon, used in the commission of the offence of murder, has been hided which, according to the Investigating Officer, was recovered and was seized under Ext.5/1. 12. Thus, we do find that the prosecution has been able to establish the aforesaid facts which unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellant. 13. 12. Thus, we do find that the prosecution has been able to establish the aforesaid facts which unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellant. 13. It would be pertinent to point it out here that the weapon, used in the commission of the offence of murder, which was recovered by the Investigating Officer, was never produced before the court below but that, in the facts and circumstances, will hardly affect the case of the prosecution adversely, as it is not only the Investigating Officer who has said that the weapon used in the commission of the offence of murder was recovered at the instance of the appellant but the other witness namely, Niranjan Chaudhary (PW1) has also testified that the said weapon was recovered at the instance of the appellant. In that event, non-production of the weapon, used, before the court below, hardly affects the case of the prosecution. 14. That apart, the motive, which was assigned that the appellant did kill his wife as he intended to marry another woman, has also been established by the witnesses who are consistent on this point. 15. Thus, we do find that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts and thereby the trial court is absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant. 16. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant is hereby affirmed. 17. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed.