Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 541 (JHR)

Dhena Soren v. State of Jharkhand

2015-04-28

PRAMATH PATNAIK, R.R.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12thJuly, 2004 and 14thJuly, 2004 respectively passed by the then Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Sahibganj in Sessions Case No.2/2004, whereby and whereunder the Court, having found the appellants guilty for committing murder of Talu Soren, convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 and further to undergo R.I for one year for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution, as has been made out in the fardbeyan (Ext.2) of the informant Beti Moy Hembrom, is that her father-in-law had three sons namely, Lal Soren, Talu Soren (deceased) and one Manje Soren. Talu Soren when married to the informant Betti Moy Hembrom (P.W.1), informant started living together along with the fathering-law and brother-in-law. When they started living together, altercation in between her husband (deceased) and father-in-law and other sons of the fathering-law took place. Thereupon, the deceased Talu Soren alongwith his wife started living separately. In spite of that there had been some altercation in between the parties as the properties had not been partitioned. Appellant no. 3Babooji Soren, who happened to be the Gotia of the informant's fatherinlaw, used to tell her husband that he will not give any share or any article in the property of his father. Further case is that on the day of Tuesday, perhaps it is 25.2.2003 there had been an altercation in between the informant and the deceased as a result of which the deceased-husband of the informant, came to the house of the appellant Babooji Soren. On the next day i.e. on Wednesday, the informant came to the house of Babooji Soren for taking back her husband to his house but, the husband who was quite angry, asked the informant to go away. Thereupon, she left her husband and then came to her parent's house on the Wednesday itself. On 2nd of March, 2003 at 8 A.M. one Ponka MarandiPW7 informed her that her husband has killed himself by hanging. Thereupon, she left her husband and then came to her parent's house on the Wednesday itself. On 2nd of March, 2003 at 8 A.M. one Ponka MarandiPW7 informed her that her husband has killed himself by hanging. On getting this information, the informantP.W.1, his father Chote Lal HembrumP.W.2 and also Ponka MarandiP.W.7 came to the house at about 3 P.M. where she found her husband hanging but both the legs were touching the ground and, therefore, she suspected some foul play and hence, they set out in search of some clue, in that course Tala Moyee MarandiP.W.3 disclosed to them that on the Wednesday (2622003) there had been an altercation in between the deceased and his father and brother as they were not ready to give the utensils which have been purchased by the deceased. During that course, the appellant had assaulted the deceased and in the evening, they brought the dead body and got it hang through the roof to give the look that the deceased had committed suicide. Thus, it has been alleged that all the appellants by sharing common intention committed murder of the deceased. On the said fardbeyan, a case was registered against the appellants and a formal F.I.R was drawn. The case was taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer (not examined), during which the Investigating Officer seems to have made inquest on the dead-body of the deceased. Thereupon, the deadbody was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Jawahar Khan on 3rd March, 2003 at 1.20 P.M. On holding the postmortem, the doctor did find the following injuries: (i) whole body swollen & Abrasion over that (ii) Maggots present over body tounge protruded & eye closed foul smelling coming out from the body bruise over chest, legature mark over neck very indistinct. (iii) Tracial rings broken. The doctor issued postmortem examination report (exhibit 3) with an opinion that the cause of death was shock & asphyxia due to throttling and the time passed since death more than 72 hours. In the meantime, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the appellants, upon which the cognizance of the offences was taken. In the meantime, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the appellants, upon which the cognizance of the offences was taken. When the appellants were put on trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, out of them, P.Ws 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been declared hostile. The informant was examined as P.W.1, who has testified in the same manner as has been stated in her fardbeyan wherein she had stated that she came to know that the appellants had assaulted the deceased at the house of Babooji Soren which she knew from Tala Moyee MarandiP.W.3. P.W.2the father of the informant seems to have been inquest witness though he has testified that the appellants were not in good term with the deceased, who was found hanging through plastic rope when he came to the house of the deceased. He has also stated that P.W.3, had disclosed to P.W.1 that he had seen the appellants assaulting the deceased but PW3 did not come to support his earlier statement as he turned hostile. In that situation, there appears to be no evidence whatsoever that he saw the appellants assaulting the deceased at the house of Babooji Soren and then brought the dead-body to the house of the deceased and got it tied through roof. In spite of it, the trial court has recorded the order of conviction and passed the order of sentence as aforesaid, against the appellants, which cannot be justified. In the result this appeal is allowed, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed against the appellants, is hereby, set aside and all the appellants are acquitted of the charge. Consequently, appellant no.1 Dhena Soren, who is in custody is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. So far, the appellant nos. 2 and 3 namely Manje Soren and Babooji Soren are concerned, who are on bail and hence they are discharged from liability of their bail bonds. Thus, this appeal stands allowed.