Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 643 (JHR)

Rajendra Lal v. State of Jharkhand

2015-05-19

PRAMATH PATNAIK, R.R.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.2.2005 and order of sentence dated 17.2.2005 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Daltonganj in S.T. No. 193 of 2003 whereby and whereunder, the court having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of his wife-Poonam Devi convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution, as has been made out in the fardbeyan (Ext. 5) by the informant-Chanchala Kumari (P.W.1), is that on 10.10.2002 while she was in her house, Aman Kumar-P.W.2, son of the deceased, came there and informed her that his father has killed his mother. Upon it, she along with others including her brother-Vijay Kumar-P.W.5 went there and found Poonam Devi dead. They also noticed that the neck was swollen and was having ligature mark. There she was also informed by Abhinav Kumar-P.W.3, another son of the deceased, that his father took his mother to a room where she was assaulted severely and as such she raised distress alarm. After some time when his father came out, he told them (P.Ws. 2 and 3) that he has killed their mother. He also asked them to go and to inform to their maternal grand parents and maternal aunt. While the informant was there in the house of the deceased, S.I. of Daltonganj Town P.S., Jaglal Ram, came there at about 2:30pm and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.5) of the informant-Chanchala Kumari (PW.1) who stated about the occurrence, as has been stated above, and also stated that the appellant has killed his wife, as he wanted to marry another girl. On the basis of which a formal FIR (Ext.1) was drawn against the appellant. He himself took up the investigation during which he held inquest on the dead-body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext.7) and sent the dead-body for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Mohan Prasad-P.W.10 who upon holding autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased found the following injuries :- i. Ligature mark around the neck was present. Transversely placed, completely encircling the neck below the thyroid cartilage. Mohan Prasad-P.W.10 who upon holding autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased found the following injuries :- i. Ligature mark around the neck was present. Transversely placed, completely encircling the neck below the thyroid cartilage. Imprint of twisted rope approximately ½ to 3/4c.m. in diameter. More deep on the sides of the neck. Base was soft and reddish with abrasions around the edge of the ligature mark. ii. Bruising of the neck muscles was present. iii. Fracture of thyroid cartilage was present. iv. Face was congested and livid. v. Eyes and mouth were closed and both fists clenched. 3. The doctor issued the postmortem examination report (Ext. 4) with an opinion that the death was caused due to mechanical asphyxia due to strangulation with a rope. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer also seized a rope and the pieces of saris under Seizure List (Ext.6) which were produced by the appellant. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. 4. After completion of the investigation, when the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant, cognizance of the offence, was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the appellant was put on trial. 5. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined altogether 11 witnesses. Of them, P.W. 1-Chanchala Kumari-informant, P.W. 4-Nisha Kumari, P.W. 5-Vijay Kumar, P.W. 8-Abhay Kumar and P.W. 9-Anju Devi are the hearsay witnesses who had derived knowledge of the occurrence from Aman Kumar-P.W. 2 and Abhinav Kumar-P.W. 3, both sons of the deceased, when they came to the house of the deceased and found the deceased dead and her neck was found swollen and over it ligature mark was present. P.W. 6-Achyutanand Pandey and P.W. 7-Pankaj Kishore are the independent witnesses who had also came to the place of occurrence and in their presence, a rope and pieces of sari, which were given by the appellant to the police, were seized. P.W. 2-Aman Kumar and P.W. 3-Abhinav Kumar, both sons of the deceased, did testify that the appellant took their mother inside the room where he started assaulting her upon which their mother started raising distress alarm. P.W. 2-Aman Kumar and P.W. 3-Abhinav Kumar, both sons of the deceased, did testify that the appellant took their mother inside the room where he started assaulting her upon which their mother started raising distress alarm. After some time, she became quite and thereupon the appellant came out of the room and told them that he has killed their mother and, therefore, they should inform to their maternal grand parents and maternal aunt and accordingly P.W. 2-Aman Kumar informed this to P.W.1-informant. 6. After closure of the prosecution case, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. about the incriminating materials appearing against him, he denied. However, from the suggestion, given to the witnesses, it does appear that the defence, taken by the appellant, is that the deceased did commit suicide. 7. The trial court having placed implicit reliance on the testimonies of P.Ws. 2 and 3 whose testimonies getting corroboration from the testimonies of other witnesses and also from the medical evidence, did find the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, which is under challenge. 8. Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that P.Ws. 2 and 3 in their testimonies have categorically testified that at the time of occurrence, one maid servant was present in the house but the police has not recorded her statement nor she has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and thereby adverse inference be drawn on account of withholding of an important witness. Further, it was submitted that some of the witnesses have testified that the appellant committed murder of his wife as he wanted to marry another girl, whereas other witnesses have testified that on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the appellant has killed the deceased and thereby the prosecution can be said to have failed in establishing the motive of the occurrence and under the circumstances, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside. 9. As against this, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the State, submits that there has been no reason to discard the testimonies of P.Ws. 9. As against this, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the State, submits that there has been no reason to discard the testimonies of P.Ws. 2 and 3, both minor sons of the appellant, who were present in the house at the time of occurrence and thereby they do appear to be the most natural witnesses and that there does not appear to be any reason for giving false evidences and thereby the trial court is 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. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, we do find that on the day of occurrence i.e. on 10.10.2002 while P.W.2-Aman Kumar and P.W.3-Abhinav Kumar, both minor sons of the appellant and deceased, were in the house, the appellant started subjecting his wife to assault and then took his wife to a room and closed the door and started assaulting her upon which the deceased starting raising distress alarm but after some time she became quite. After a while, when the appellant came out of the room, he disclosed to them that he has killed their mother which fact is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act being res gestae. Thereupon, P.W. 2 informed the informant-Chanchala Kumari (P.W.1) about the incidence who along with P.Ws. 4, 5 and 9 came to the house of the deceased and found her dead. They also noticed that the neck was swollen and was having ligature mark. According to the doctor, ligature mark was on account of strangulation of neck with a rope. The doctor on being questioned ruled out the possibility of suicide. That apart, antemortem injuries were found over the neck of the deceased. 11. Further, we do find that when the police came to the place of occurrence, the appellant produced a rope and pieces of sari to the Investigating Officer who got it seized. Thus, there appears to be clinching evidences to the effect that it was the appellant who committed murder of the deceased. In such situation, the motive being proved or not proved hardly effects the case of the prosecution. Further, when P.Ws. Thus, there appears to be clinching evidences to the effect that it was the appellant who committed murder of the deceased. In such situation, the motive being proved or not proved hardly effects the case of the prosecution. Further, when P.Ws. 2 and 3, both sons of the informant and deceased, appear to be wholly trustworthy, non-examination of maid servant by the prosecution hardly effects the case of the prosecution. 12. 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. 13. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant is hereby affirmed. 14. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed.