Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 215 (JHR)

Chhota Sidho Murmu v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-28

D.N.UPADHYAY, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2006, passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, in connection with Sessions Case No. 179 of 2004, corresponding to Borio P.S. Case No. 96 of 2004, dated 01.07.2004, G.R. Case No. 263 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the Fardbeyan of Bhairo Soren recorded on 01.07.2004 at about 10.30 hours at village Puwal, within P.S. Borio, District-Sahibganj, in brief, is that on 30.06.2004 the deceased and her husband were consuming liquor at the instance of appellant. At about 10.30 p.m. the appellant along with husband of the deceased went to the house of Salhayee Soren and again they started drinking. In the meantime, the appellant on the pretext of bringing snacks went out from the house of Salhayee Soren and thereafter he was seen by P.W.7 Ranjit Hembrom and P.W. 8 Sital Marandi fleeing away from the house of the deceased and he was having Dawli (a sharp cutting weapon) in his hand. The aforesaid witnesses entered into the house of the deceased and found her throat slit. The appellant was caught by the villagers and he was taken to the house of Pradhan, where he confessed his guilt. The aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the informant, who happens to be the son of the deceased, and he had given his Fardbeyan before the police on 01.07.2004. On the basis of Fardbeyan of Bhairo Soren, a case being Borio P.S. Case No. 96 of 2004 dated 01.07.2004, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant Chhota Sidho Murmu was registered. 3. The police, after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet and accordingly cognizance was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was registered as S.T. No. 179 of 2004. 4. Charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge, examined altogether 12 witnesses and proved seizure list, inquest report and the weapon which have been marked exhibits. 4. Charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge, examined altogether 12 witnesses and proved seizure list, inquest report and the weapon which have been marked exhibits. The learned Sessions Judge at the conclusion of trial placing reliance on the evidences and documents available on record held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him, as indicated above. 5. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that there is no eye witness to the occurrence, the statements given by P.Ws. 7 and 8 could not conclusively prove the guilt of the appellant, the informant is hearsay witness, contention made by the informant does not appear to be acceptable, the most important aspect of the prosecution case is that the relation of the appellant with the deceased and her husband was quite cordial and all the three were consuming liquor on that fateful day since afternoon. It is disclosed that at about 10.30 p.m. the appellant along with Sangram Soren (husband of the informant) went to the house of Salhayee Soren and again they sat for consuming liquor. At this juncture, it is unknown to the prosecution as to what happened to deceased who was already in the company of appellant. It is no where stated by the eye witness as to when and from which place she had withdrawn herself from the company of her husband and the appellant. It is also not clear as to which direction she went thereafter. It is equally important when the husband of the deceased did not come forward to support the prosecution case. He did not say that at about 10.30 p.m. the appellant left his company on the pretext of bringing snacks. The informant has no occasion to explain this fact in his Fardbeyan because he did not disclose any source of information received against aforesaid fact. There was neither mens rea nor motive to commit murder. The confession alleged to have been made by the appellant before the witnesses and villagers could not be considered voluntary because evidence on record speaks that he was kept tied with a rope in the house of Pradhan. The scenario which P.Ws. There was neither mens rea nor motive to commit murder. The confession alleged to have been made by the appellant before the witnesses and villagers could not be considered voluntary because evidence on record speaks that he was kept tied with a rope in the house of Pradhan. The scenario which P.Ws. 7 and 8 have brought on record appears highly doubtful in view of other admitted facts available on records. The entire prosecution case brought on record is shrouded with doubt and no conclusive findings could be drawn on the evidences available on record to hold the appellant guilty for the offence of murder and he is liable to be acquitted. 6. The learned A.P.P has opposed the arguments and submitted that the appellant was seen fleeing away for the place of occurrence having Dawli (a sharp cutting weapon) in his hand. Soon, thereafter, P.Ws. 7 and 8 entered into the house of the deceased and they found deceased dead lying on a cot and she was having cut injury on her neck. During day hour the appellant was seen in company of the deceased and her husband. After the incident, on Hulla other villagers also assembled who made a search of appellant, caught hold of him and kept him confined in the house of Pradhan. Besides the evidence of P.Ws 7 and 8, other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Medical evidence and ocular evidence are corroborative to each other, weapon recovered from the possession of the appellant was produced before the Court and marked as Exhibit-I. 7. We have gone through the case records, evidences available and perused the impugned judgment. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. Nobody had seen assault caused to the deceased by the appellant and the circumstance which has been brought on record by P.Ws. 7 and 8 are to be viewed with great care and caution. According to the statement of P.Ws 7 and 8, they had seen the appellant fleeing from the place of occurrence having Dawli in his hand. When they entered into the house, they found Tala Mai (the mother of the informant) dead lying on a cot and she was having cut injury. Whether conviction could be upheld only on the basis of evidence indicated above? When they entered into the house, they found Tala Mai (the mother of the informant) dead lying on a cot and she was having cut injury. Whether conviction could be upheld only on the basis of evidence indicated above? To find out the answer, we have examined the evidence of other witnesses and the circumstances which have been brought on record. The admitted statement of informant is that his mother and father had been consuming liquor with the appellant since afternoon, but it is unknown as to at which place they had been consuming liquor. It is again unknown to the record as to when and from which place deceased Tala Mai had withdrawn herself from the company of her husband and the appellant. This fact is available on record that the appellant along with Sangram Soren (husband of the deceased) went to the house of Sangram Soren to consume liquor again and they sat together. The appellant, on the pretext of bringing snacks, left the house of Sangram Soren, but, it is nowhere disclosed that he was having any weapon with him at that point of time. After leaving the house of Sangaram Soren, the appellant moved to which direction, has not been brought on record by the prosecution. Nobody had seen him entering in the house of deceased, not only that nobody had seen the deceased as to when she entered her house and in what condition. The facts and the circumstances under which the deceased and her husband had been consuming liquor along with the appellant does not find support from any of the prosecution witness because, the informant is not an eye witness and he did not say that he had seen his father and mother consuming liquor in company of appellant. He did not disclose that from which source he received that information. In such circumstances, non-examination of Sangram Soren (husband of the deceased) appears fatal to the prosecution. Again, we would like to observe that the circumstances which have been brought on record, suggest that relation between the family of the deceased and the appellant was quite cordial and parent of the informant were enjoying liquor. No motive has been introduced nor mens rea behind commission of murder has been brought on record. Again, we would like to observe that the circumstances which have been brought on record, suggest that relation between the family of the deceased and the appellant was quite cordial and parent of the informant were enjoying liquor. No motive has been introduced nor mens rea behind commission of murder has been brought on record. In the circumstances as stated herein above and the evidence available on record, we do not find that the prosecution has succeeded to bring home the charge beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The story brought by prosecution witnesses on record is not free from doubt and settled principle of law is that benefit of doubts is always to be given to the accused. 8. Considering the aforesaid settled principle of law and in absence of direct and conclusive evidence, we feel inclined to allow this appeal and accordingly the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2006, passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, in Sessions Case No. 179 of 2004 is hereby set aside. Appellant Chhota Sidho Murmu is acquitted from the charges levelled against him and directed to be released forthwith from jail custody, if not wanted in any other cases and for that appropriate direction may be issued, if necessary, by the convicting/successor Court.