Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 349 (JHR)

Sheodhan Kisku v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-16

D.N.UPADHYAY, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : RATNAKER BHENGRA, J. This Criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.9.2003 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 96 of 2002 arising out of G.R.Case No.1065 of 2001 Kathikund P.S.Case No. 54 of 2001 whereby the above named 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 case of the prosecution as it appears from the Fardbeyan of the informant Suniram Tudu,P.W.8 that he lodged a written report to the Officer-In-Charge of the Kathikund Police station stating that on the night of 25.11.2001 he was at home when he heard alarm that Sheodhan Kisku had killed his wife. He then went to the house of the accused and he was just about to enter it, the father-in-law of the deceased, Ram Das Kisku said that my son Sheodhan Kisku had killed his wife Surodhani Tudu by strangulating her. He then entered into the house and saw that his cousin sister, Surodhani is lying in a dead. There was some injury in the cheek and froth at the mouth. He heard that Sheodhan suspected his wife Surodhani of having an illicit affair with one Gopal Murmu and hence he killed her by strangulating. He also stated that when Sheodhan was assaulting her during that time, he kept the door of his room shut from inside. On the scream of the deceased, the father-in-law of the deceased made efforts to open the door, but Sheodhan did not open the door and strangulated her, and then only opened the door and came out and then told his father that he had killed his wife Surodhani Tudu. 3. On the basis of the Fardbeyan of Suniram Tudu, P.W.8 Kathikund P.S Case no. 54 of 2001 was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The police, after due investigation, submitted charge sheet, accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions and registered as S.C No. 96 of 2002. 4. Charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed, but the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses. 4. Charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed, but the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, after conclusion of trial, convicted the accused person for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal. 5. P.W.4, Ramdas Kisku, father of the accused deposed that it was night and he, his wife and children were at home. After dinner, Sheodhan, along with his wife and child went to their room to sleep. He heard the voice of the child crying and went to the door of the accused but found it closed. When the accused opened the door, they found the deceased lying dead. 6. PW 3, Lilmuni Murmu, mother of the accused, has deposed that when the door of the room of the accused opened, then she saw the dead body of the deceased, her daughter-in-law. Many persons from the village had collected at the place. In her cross examination she has deposed that her son had definitely killed her daughter-in-law because the room was closed. She has supported the deposition of her husband. 7. Suniram Tudu P.W 8 is the informant. He has deposed that at the time of incident he was in his house. He heard the father of the accused Sheodhan raising alarm “Sheodhan has killed his wife” and he went to the house of the accused and saw that Surodhani Tudu was lying dead. He deposed that he saw injury on her neck and froth was in her mouth. The father of the accused informed him that the accused has killed his wife, Surodhani Tudu. He deposed that he then lodged the fardbeyan and affixed his thumb impression. 8. Bagesol Tudu P.W.1 has stated in his deposition that when he was going to sleep in his room, he heard the sounds of a child weeping. On hearing he went along with the villagers to the place of occurrence, where he saw that the room was closed. When the door was opened, he saw the wife of Sheodhan lying dead and the accused Sheodhan confessed before them that he has killed his wife, because she has love affair with one Gopal Murmu. 9. On hearing he went along with the villagers to the place of occurrence, where he saw that the room was closed. When the door was opened, he saw the wife of Sheodhan lying dead and the accused Sheodhan confessed before them that he has killed his wife, because she has love affair with one Gopal Murmu. 9. The learned Defense counsel has argued that the appellant has been wrongly convicted, because, no single witness has seen him killing his wife and in the absence of any witness, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Moreover, Dr. Devashish Rakshit, P.W 5 has given opinion that injuries were also caused by hard and blunt substance or by sharp cutting weapon, but no weapon was recovered. Finally, counsel has argued that apparently his wife was having an illicit love affair with another person and this impaired his thinking and he may have assaulted his wife, when he may have momentarily lost his senses, so he cannot be convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. The learned A.P.P. on the other hand has submitted that there may not have been a single direct witness to the actual killing, but there are enough reliable witnesses who were immediately proximate to the killing and in such circumstances that the only conclusion will be to uphold the conviction of the appellant. FINDINGS 11. In fact the most reliable witnesses, who may not have seen the actual killing, but were aware that the deceased was being assaulted by Sheodhan, are the own father and mother of the accused, who are not expected normally to accuse their own children for murder, unless they are persons of integrity. Ramdas Kisku, P.W 4, father of the accused and father-in-law of the deceased has deposed that it was night and he, his wife and children were at home. After dinner, Sheodhan, along with his wife and child went to their room to sleep. He heard the voice of the child crying and went to the door of the accused but found it closed. When the accused opened the door, they found the deceased lying dead. Lilmuni Murmu P.W 3, mother of the accused and mother-in-law of the deceased has deposed in the same manner as her husband. He heard the voice of the child crying and went to the door of the accused but found it closed. When the accused opened the door, they found the deceased lying dead. Lilmuni Murmu P.W 3, mother of the accused and mother-in-law of the deceased has deposed in the same manner as her husband. The fact that both the father and mother heard the voice of the deceased prior to her dying, they rushed to the room of the accused which was locked and on opening of the door, they found the deceased lying dead there, which can only point to the conclusion that if death is homicidal, then Sheodhan is the responsible person. Bagesol Tudu P.W.1 has deposed that he heard commotion (hulla) and went to the place of occurrence and saw the wife of Sheodhan was lying dead. Sheodhan confessed that he killed his wife because she was having an illicit affair with some one else. Sheodhan made same confession before Robin Soren P.W2 and Sibu Murmu P.W.7 and other villagers. 12. Dr. Devashish Rakshit is P.W.5. He has stated that on 26.11.2001 he has held the post-mortem on the dead body of Surodhani Tudu W/O Sheodhan Kisku of village-Mohanpur, P.S Kathikund, District Dumka and found the following ante-mortem injuries over the dead body of the deceased (1) On the face- (a) Lacerated wound 1/4”x1/4”x skin deep over left side of upper lip. (b) Several bruises arranged in oval shape size 1/4”x1/4” each six in number over left side of cheek. (c) Incised wound size 1”x1/4x skin deep over left side of cheek. (2) Neck-Diffuse swelling over the front of neck. One bruise 1-1/2”x1/2” with nail mark abrasion over right side of neck and over left side of neck. There were 4 bruises 1/2”x 1/2” with nail mark abrasions-On dissection subcutaneous petechial haemorrhages found under neath muscles were congested. On deep dissection fracture of hyoid bone and trachea rings found. Trachea and Larynx were congested. (3) On dissection of thorax lungs were found congested. In his opinion the death was due to asphyxia, as a result of injury no. (2) which was sufficient enough to cause death in ordinary course of nature due to throttling. Time elapsed since death within 24 hours. Injury No.(1)(a) and (b) were caused by hard and blunt substance and injury no.(1)(c) was caused by sharp cutting weapon. In his opinion the death was due to asphyxia, as a result of injury no. (2) which was sufficient enough to cause death in ordinary course of nature due to throttling. Time elapsed since death within 24 hours. Injury No.(1)(a) and (b) were caused by hard and blunt substance and injury no.(1)(c) was caused by sharp cutting weapon. He proved the post-mortem report which is in his writing and bears his signature i.e. Ext.2. 13. P.W.6 Manoj Kumar Singh is the I.O of this case. During course of investigation he took the statement of informant and other witnesses. On 26.11.2001 he prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased in carbon process which is in his writing and bears his signature i.e. Ext.3. During course of investigation he inspected the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is the house of Sheodhan Kisku from where he seized the dead body of the deceased. He sent the dead body of the deceased to the hospital for post-mortem. Further he proves fardbeyan and formal F.I.R which is in his writing and bears the signature of Shri N.K. Ghosh, Officer-in-charge that has been marked Ext.4. After completing the investigation he has submitted the charge-sheet. 14. In this case even though nobody actually saw the accused assaulting his wife, the accused person's own father and mother were aware from the noise and scream coming from inside the son's room, that something or an assault was taking place. They were anxious to open the door but it seems that the accused only opened the door after he had killed his wife and on opening of the door, they both saw the dead body of the daughter-in-law lying on the floor. This immediately connects the dead body, especially since there was injury on the body to the accused Sheodhan. He also tells those present about the reason for his action that he suspected the fidelity of his wife, hence he committed the murder. The accused person's mother and father have not sought to distance themselves from what is apparently the truth of his murder. Further the I.O. seized the dead body from the house of the accused itself which would only further support the version of other witnesses; P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W 8 and others to the place of occurrence, which would support in linking the crime to the accused Sheodhan Kisku. 15. Further the I.O. seized the dead body from the house of the accused itself which would only further support the version of other witnesses; P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W 8 and others to the place of occurrence, which would support in linking the crime to the accused Sheodhan Kisku. 15. Thus, having perused the documents and records and having heard arguments of both the counsels and the aforesaid reasons given in the findings above, the appellant's conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld and so is his sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. 16. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.