Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2 (JHR)

Satrughan Rajwar @ Chhotu v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-02

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 9.3.2007 and Order of sentence dated 12.3.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Bokaro, in S.T. No. 396 of 2005, whereby, the sole appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Dileshwar Rajwar, who is the uncle of the deceased, recorded on 4.7.2005 at about 11:00 P.M. at Hanuman Nagar in the district of Bokaro. According to the fardbeyan, Sadhani Rajwar @ Chhoti, the niece of the informant, was married to the accused Satrughan Rajwar @ Chhotu, in the same year and after the marriage, they used to live at Hanuman Nagar. As the brother of the informant had given a house to his daughter in his Village-Dhobani, they were also living in the said village. It is alleged that on 3.7.2005 the accused took his wife to Hanuman Nagar stating that they were going to bring some articles. On the next day at about 9:00 a.m., a boy from Hanuman Nagar came and informed that Sadhani Rajwar had been murdered by ht:}r husband Satrughan Rajwar. Since the father of the deceased was ill, this informant along with his nephew went to the place of occurrence, which was near a kiln, and found the dead body of the deceased with incised injuries on the dead' body. He was informed by the villagers present there that there was some quarrel between the husband and the wife in the night, and in the morning the villagers had seen the dead body of the deceased. The accused was covering the, dead body by a Baree, but when the people started assembling, he tied away. He was informed by the villagers present there that there was some quarrel between the husband and the wife in the night, and in the morning the villagers had seen the dead body of the deceased. The accused was covering the, dead body by a Baree, but when the people started assembling, he tied away. Alleging that the deceased had been killed by the accused, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which Bokaro Steel City, Sector-XII, P.S. Case No. 216 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 716 of 2005, was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused Satrughan Rajwar @ Chhotu, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses, including the Doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The I.O. of the case has not been examined and as such, the formal F.I.R., the fardbeyan, the seizure lists and the confessional statement of accused were proved by a formal witness P.W. 9, Arun Chandra Sen, who was an Advocate Clerk, and were marked Exhibits-3, 4, 5, 1/2 and 6 respectively. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 5. P.W. 7 is Dileshwar Rajwar, the informant in the case. This witness has supported the prosecution case stating that the deceased was married to the accused and she had gone to Hanuman Nagar along with her husband. On the next day someone informed that the deceased was killed by her husband Satrughan Rajwar, whereupon this witness went to Majethiya Mines, where he found the dead body of the deceased with stabbed injuries on the body. He was informed by the persons present near the dead body that the accused was covering the dead body by Saree, but upon seeing the people assembling, he fled away. He has stated that his statement was recorded by the police on which he had put his thumb impression and thereafter the dead body was taken for post mortem examination. He was informed by the persons present near the dead body that the accused was covering the dead body by Saree, but upon seeing the people assembling, he fled away. He has stated that his statement was recorded by the police on which he had put his thumb impression and thereafter the dead body was taken for post mortem examination. He has identified the accused in the Court. There is nothing of much importance in his cross-examination, as admittedly he is not the eyewitness to the occurrence. 6. P.W. 1-Nemhas Tirkey, P.W. 2 Theodare Dungdung, P.W. 3-Vijay Beg and P.W. 4-Agastin Tirkey had seen the dead body of the deceased in the morning and they have also stated that they were informed by the persons near the dead body that the accused had committed the murder of his wife. Thereafter, the accused was found by them in the market. He was apprehended and produced before the police. P.W. 3-Vijay Beg has stated that Satrughan Rajwar had confessed that he had committed the murder of his wife and P.W. 4-Agastin Tirkey has stated that the said confession was made by the accused before the police. P.W. 2-Theodare Dungdung and P.W. 4-Agastin Tirkey are also the signatories to the inquest report of the dead body. 7. P.W. S-Pawan Kumar Singh and P.W. 6-Lala Munda, are the seizure list witnesses, in whose presence there was recovery of bloodstained soil, broken bangles and ear top of the deceased, and they have proved their signatures as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/1 on the seizure list. 8. P.W. 8-Dr. Pramod Kumar had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 4.7.2005 and had found the following injuries on the dead body: (i) Lacerated wound on left side of the face 5" x 1" X 2½ ". (ii) Fracture of lower jaws. (iii) Multiple stab injury on xiphisternum and abdomen about 5 stabbed injuries so deep which pierced the concerning internal organs like heart, spleen and liver. (iv) The stab injury on right upper thigh including perineum about 8 stabbed. Coagulated blood were found on the stabbed part. On dissection The thoracic cavity full of coagulated blood. Viscera like heart, spleen, lung, liver and kidney were pale. Stomach contained liquid and gas. (iv) The stab injury on right upper thigh including perineum about 8 stabbed. Coagulated blood were found on the stabbed part. On dissection The thoracic cavity full of coagulated blood. Viscera like heart, spleen, lung, liver and kidney were pale. Stomach contained liquid and gas. He has stated that the cause of death was due to severe bleeding due to stab by sharp weapon, shock and cardiorespiratory failure. He has identified the post mortem report to be in his pen and signature and the same was market Exhibit-2. 9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The dead body was not found at the house of the deceased, rather it was found at a distant lonely place with stabbed injuries. Though the witnesses have stated that the persons assembled near the dead body informed them that the accused had committed the murder of his wife, but no such witness has been examined by the prosecution. Indeed, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the only circumstance against the appellant is that the appellant had come to his village along with his wife a day prior to the incident and on the next day the dead body of his wife was found. Learned counsel submitted that the circumstances are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that though the case rests only on the circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances proved in the case are sufficient to point only towards the guilt of the accused and not otherwise. Learned counsel for the State accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 12. Learned counsel for the State accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the witnesses examined in the case are only hearsay witnesses, who have stated that they were informed that the deceased was killed by her husband. No witness has been examined by the prosecution who had either seen the accused quarreling with his wife or to have committed the murder of his wife. The dead body of the deceased was found at a lonely place in the morning and the accused was not apprehended from the said place. The evidences of the P.Ws. 1 to 4 show that they had apprehended the accused from the market after some time. The I.O. in the case has not been examined and the confessional statement and other necessary documents have been proved only by a formal witness and accordingly, the contents, thereof, cannot be looked into. Even though P.W. 3-Vijay Beg has stated that the accused had confessed the guilt in his presence, but from the evidence of P.W. 4-Agastin Tirkey, it is apparent that the said confessional statement was made before the police, which has no evidentiary value. In the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the circumstances proved by the prosecution are very weak circumstances and they are not such so as to prove the guilt of the accused. We are of the considered view that it is a fit case in which the accused ought to have been given the benefits of doubt by the Trial Court, and the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 13. For the foregoing discussions, the impugned Judgment of conviction. dated 9.3.2007 and Order of sentence dated 12.3.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Bokaro, in S.T. No. 396 of 2005, are hereby, set aside. The appellant Satrughan Rajwar @ Chhotu is given the benefits of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is in custody, serving out the sentence. Let him be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 14. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. The appellant Satrughan Rajwar @ Chhotu is given the benefits of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is in custody, serving out the sentence. Let him be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 14. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith to the Court concerned, along with a copy of this Judgment.