Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 301 (JHR)

Gyani Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-24

R.R.PRASAD, RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
Judgment This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 3rd July, 2003, passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Garhwa., in Sessions Trial No.29 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the trial court, having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of his wife-Saro Devi, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that while the informant Mahabir Singh (P.W.2) was sitting by the side of the house of the appellant-Gyani Singh at about 4 P.M. on 26.12.1998 along with other persons, namely, Nanhak Singh (P.W.5), Bhushan Singh (not examined), Ramchandra Singh (P.W.6), Tribhuvan Singh (P.W.1) and Dev Kumar Singh (P.W.4), they heard sound of firing coming from the house of the appellant-Gyani Singh. Thereupon, the informant, when came to the house of the appellant, he found Gyani Singh, holding a gun in his hand and his wife was lying dead. When the informant asked the appellant as to why he has killed his wife, the appellant told the informant that he has killed her as she was a woman of easy virtue. 3. Thereafter, when other persons came, they apprehended the appellant and brought at the police station where Mahabir Singh (P.W.2) gave his Fardbeyan (Ext.7) to that effect as stated above, which was recorded by the Officer-in-Charge, Bhandaria Police Station on 26.12.1998 at 7.00 P.M. on the basis of which, a formal First Information Report (Ext. 6) was drawn. 4. During investigation, the I.O.-Manohar Ram held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared a inquest report over which P.W.5 Nanhak Singh made his signature, which has been proved as Ext.3/1. Thereupon the dead body was sent for its postmortem examination, which was conducted by P.W.7-Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha, who found the following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound 2”x1/4”xbone and brain cavity deep left temporal region of scalp with inverted margin with blackening of skin and synzing of scalp hair along with fracture of left temporal bone (wound of entry). Thereupon the dead body was sent for its postmortem examination, which was conducted by P.W.7-Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha, who found the following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound 2”x1/4”xbone and brain cavity deep left temporal region of scalp with inverted margin with blackening of skin and synzing of scalp hair along with fracture of left temporal bone (wound of entry). (ii) Lacerated wound 3-1/2”x3” with everted margin and deep up to the entry wound with presence of blood and blood clots with facture of right maxillary upper molar and pre-molar teeth (wound of exit) (iii) Lacerated wound 2”x1” x bone and muscle deep with fracture of bones of fore-arm near right wrist joint. (iv) Lacerated wound 2”x1-1/4” x bone and muscle deep over left palm with fracture of left metacarpal bone of left little finger with persons and blood and blood clots. The Doctor issued postmortem examination report (Ext.5), with an opinion that death was caused due to shock and hemorrhages on account of injury mentioned above. Further it has been opined that the injury Nos. i and ii were caused by fire arm whereas injury Nos. iii and iv were caused by hard and blood substance. 5. On completion of the investigation, when the charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the accused was put on trial. When the charges were framed against the appellant of committing murder of his wife, he admitted at that stage to have committed murder of his wife. Since the case was under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the court, thought it proper to put the appellant on trial, in spite of appellant admitting his guilt. 6. During trial, the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined altogether as 8 witnesses. Of them:- P.W.1-Tribhuvan Singh and P.W.3-Shambhu Prasad are the hearsay witness, who have testified that when they reached to the house of the appellant, they came to know that the appellant has killed his wife. P.W.1 has further testified that the appellant-Gyani Singh, at that point of time, when the witnesses had come to his house, had declared that he has killed his wife. P.W.1 has further testified that the appellant-Gyani Singh, at that point of time, when the witnesses had come to his house, had declared that he has killed his wife. According to P.W.3, the people were saying that the appellant has killed his wife and, therefore, the people, who had assembled there, had tied him by a rope and asked him to take him to police station. P.W.4-Dev Kumar Singh, P.W.5-Nanhak Singh and P.W.6-Ram Chandra Singh have been declared hostile, but they have testified that the people had taken the appellant to police station. P.W.2-Mahabir Singh is the informant. He deposed that he came to know that the appellant has killed his wife. He has further deposed that when he went to the house of the appellant, the appellant told him that he has killed his wife. 7. After the case of the prosecution was closed, when the incriminating evidences appearing against the appellant, particularly that piece of evidence that he had declared that he had killed his wife, was put under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he admitted his guilt. 8. Thereupon, trial court having regard to the evidence as stated above, found the appellant guilty and accordingly, recorded the order of conviction and the order of sentence, which is under challenge. 9. Mrs. Alpana Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that admittedly the I.O. has not been examined by the prosecution and, thereby, due to non-examination of the I.O., place of occurrence cannot be said to have established and as such the case of the defence certainly got prejudiced. 10. Further, it was submitted that the appellant has confessed his guilt before the police wherein he has stated about the circumstances under which he has killed his wife and if those circumstances are taken into account, the case would never fall within the mischief of the provision, as contained in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, rather the case would fall within the exception of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code but the trial court did not take into account the said fact and thereby, the court committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and hence, the same warrants to be set aside. 11. As against this, Mr. 11. As against this, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the witnesses, particularly P.Ws.1 and 2 have deposed that when they came to the place of occurrence i.e. house of the appellant they found the dead body lying over there and the appellant, who was there declared that he had killed his wife and not only that, the appellant, at the time of framing of charge, has also accepted his guilt and when incriminating material of admitting his guilt before the witnesses was put under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant again admitted that he has killed his wife and under the circumstances, the trial court has rightly recorded the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant, which needs no interference by this Court. 12. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that the prosecution came with the case, as had been made out in the Fardbeyan (Ext.7) that while he was sitting along other witnesses-P.Ws. 5, 6, 1 and 4 by the side of the house of the appellant, they heard sound of firing coming from the house of the appellant. Immediately the informant went over there and found the wife of the appellant lying dead on the ground having gun shot injury. At that point of time, the appellant, on being asked, declared that he has killed his wife, as he was a woman of easy virtue. Thereafter, when other persons reached over there, they took the appellant in their custody and brought to the police station, but the informant, in his evidence, does not seems to have supported the entire case. However, he has testified that when he came to the house of the appellant, he found the dead body lying there having gun shot injury over the head and the appellant, at that point of time, told him that he has killed his wife. P.W.1, though, is hearsay witness, who at the first instance, did depose that he had had no talk with the appellant but subsequently, he has deposed that the appellant told him that he has killed his wife. Again he deposed that the appellant, when was brought to the police station, there he also admitted his guilt. P.W.1, though, is hearsay witness, who at the first instance, did depose that he had had no talk with the appellant but subsequently, he has deposed that the appellant told him that he has killed his wife. Again he deposed that the appellant, when was brought to the police station, there he also admitted his guilt. Other witnesses, P.Ws.4, 5 and 6, though have been declared hostile but they have stated that the villagers had brought the appellant to the police station. 13. Thus from the evidences, particularly from the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2, it does appear that when they came to the house of the appellant, found his wife dead. The appellant, on being asked, told them that he has killed his wife and that declaration seems to be spontaneous and immediate to the occurrence and, therefore, that piece of evidence is relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. On account of that, the other persons, who reached over there took the appellant in their custody and brought him in the police station. 14. Not only that the appellant declared that he has killed his wife before the witnesses, but also admitted his guilt at the stage of framing charge as well as at the stage of Section 313, when incriminating circumstances were put to him under Section 313. 15. Further medical evidence does suggest that the wife had been killed by gun shot fire from a short distance which strengthened the case of prosecution. 16. So far as submission advanced on behalf of the defence that the court should have taken into account the circumstances appearing in his confessional statement made before the police, under which, the appellant did the act is concerned, it is not acceptable as the confessional statement made before the police never happens to be admissible. 17. Under the circumstances, we do find that the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, as the prosecution can certainly be said to have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal and hence, it is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence is, hereby, affirmed. Appeal dismissed.