Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2045 (JHR)

Babudhan Marandi v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-09-11

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 11th March, 2010 and Order of sentence dated 12th March, 2010, passed by the learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dumka, in S.C. No. 236 of 2008, whereby, the sole appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Haradhan Hansda, the father of the deceased Sanjyoti Kumari, whose dead body was found on 15.08.2008 in a well, in her village Patsara, P.S. Jarmundi, District Dumka, where the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at about 15:00 hours. In the fardbeyan, the informant has stated that his daughter was living with the accused Babudhan Marandi as his wife, for the last about one and half years. She had also given birth to a female child, who subsequently died. It is alleged that on 12.08.2008 at about 11:00 P.M. in the night, the accused came to the house of the informant and took away his daughter. When she did not return in the night, he asked the accused in the morning, whereupon the accused informed him that he had left his daughter at the house in the night itself. The informant has stated that Babudhan wanted to marry his daughter, which was being objected by his parents, Shiva Marandi and Sonamuni Hembrom. On 15.08.2008, he was informed that there was a dead body in the well, whereupon he went there and saw that the dead body was of his daughter. When the dead body was taken out of the well, seven bricks were found tied with the dead body. The informant has alleged that the accused Babudhan, his father Shiva Marandi, and mother Sonamuni Hembrom had committed the murder of the deceased and had thrown the dead body in the well. When the dead body was taken out of the well, seven bricks were found tied with the dead body. The informant has alleged that the accused Babudhan, his father Shiva Marandi, and mother Sonamuni Hembrom had committed the murder of the deceased and had thrown the dead body in the well. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 191 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 1257 of 2008, was instituted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the three named accused persons, 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 all the three accused persons for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 / 34 of the Indian Penal, and upon the accuseds'' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. It may be stated that both the parents of the appellant who had also faced the trial, were acquitted by the Trial Court, in absence of any evidence against them. 5. In course of trial, 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination was examined by the prosecution, but the I.O. has not been examined in the case, and as such, the fardbeyan and the formal F.I.R. have been proved by a formal witness P.W.-13 Om Prakash Mahato, and these documents were marked Exts. 2 and 3 respectively. 6. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-1 Sonalal Murmu, P.W.-3 Dewasish Kisku, P.W.-7 Sunil Hansda, P.W.-8 Mohan Marandi and P.W.-9 Hemlal Soren have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case at all, whereas P.W.-4 Babusal Murmu, P.W.-5 Hemasal Marandi and P.W.-6 Bejamin Hembram have not stated anything about the occurrence. Most of these witnesses have stated that there was love affair between the accused and the deceased. Some of them have also stated that a child was born out of the relationship between them. None of these witnesses have stated about any difference between the accused and the deceased. 7. The prosecution case is supported by P.W.-10 Dinesh Hansda, the brother of the deceased, P.W.-11 Churki Marandi, the mother of the deceased and P.W.-12 Haradhan Hansda, the father of the deceased as also the informant in the case. None of these witnesses have stated about any difference between the accused and the deceased. 7. The prosecution case is supported by P.W.-10 Dinesh Hansda, the brother of the deceased, P.W.-11 Churki Marandi, the mother of the deceased and P.W.-12 Haradhan Hansda, the father of the deceased as also the informant in the case. According to the evidence of P.W.-10 Dinesh Hansda, there was a panchyati between the parties in which the deceased was handed over to the accused Babudhan and thereafter he had seen the dead body. In his cross-examination he has stated that after the deceased was handed over to Babudhan, she used to live at Babudhan''s house and she was not living in her parental house. According to the evidence of P.W.-11 Churki Marandi, the mother of the deceased, the deceased was taken away by Babudhan from her house at about 11:00 P.M. and thereafter her dead body was found, but she has again stated that after the panchayati, both of them were living in her house. In her cross-examination also, she has also stated that Babudhan was living with the deceased in the house of this witness from several days and they were living properly. P.W.-12 Haradhan Hansda, who is the father of the deceased, has given altogether a different story and he has stated that the accused Babudhan had taken away his daughter in the night and when he saw the dead body there were stab wounds on the dead body and there was plastic in the urinary track of the deceased. He has also stated that there was relationship of wife and husband between the accused and the deceased. Both P.W.-10 Dinesh Hansda and P.W.-12 Haradhan Hansda have stated that there was love affair between the deceased and there used to be no quarrel between them. 8. P.W.-2 is Dr. Chandreswar Prasad Sinha, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, on 16.08.2008, and had found the following on the dead body:- Foul smelling, decomposed body, maggots crawling all over the body. Multiple blebs all over the body with skin pilled off at multiple places. Eye eaten by maggots. Mouth closed. No mark of injury found externally. On dissection of abdomen there was lacerated wound over inferior surface of right lobe of liver 1" x " x " and collection of blood found inside the abdominal cavity. Multiple blebs all over the body with skin pilled off at multiple places. Eye eaten by maggots. Mouth closed. No mark of injury found externally. On dissection of abdomen there was lacerated wound over inferior surface of right lobe of liver 1" x " x " and collection of blood found inside the abdominal cavity. This witness has stated that death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury mentioned above, which was caused by hard and blunt substance. He has also stated that the time elapsed since death was 4 to 5 days. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.12. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the injury could be caused by fall. 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. On the basis of the evidence on record, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences, as aforesaid, whereas the other co-accused have been acquitted due to lack of evidence against them, by the Trial Court below. 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, in as much as, except the family members of the deceased, all the independent witnesses have turned hostile. The case is only supported by P.W.-10 Dinesh Hansda, the brother of the deceased, P.W.-11 Churki Marandi, the mother of the deceased and P.W.-12 Haradhan Hansda, the father of the deceased, but even these witnesses, including the hostile witnesses, have stated that there was love between the appellant and the deceased and there used to be no quarrel between them. Learned counsel also submitted that the injuries as described by the father were not found in the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the brother and the parents of the deceased, and in view of these contradictions, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 11. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the brother and the parents of the deceased, and in view of these contradictions, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer submitting that P.W.-10 Dinesh Hansda, P.W.-11 Churki Marandi and P.W.-12 Haradhan Hansda, the brother and parents of the deceased, have fully supported the prosecution case stating that it was this accused who had taken away the deceased in the night and after two days the dead body of the deceased was found. It is submitted that there was laceration in the liver of the deceased which was the cause of death of the deceased, and the said laceration was found due to the assault by hard and blunt substance. It is submitted by learned counsel that though there is no eye witness to the occurrence, but there is sufficient circumstantial evidence against the appellant and all the circumstances point out only towards the guilt of the accused appellant. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth any interference by this Court. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the love affair between the accused appellant and the deceased is an admitted fact. It is also an admitted fact that there was never any difference between both of them, as even the brother and father, who were examined as P.W.-10 and P.W.-12 respectively, have stated that there was love between the accused and the deceased and there was never any quarrel between them. Even the mother of the deceased, P.W.-11 Churki Marandi, has stated that both of them were living in her house properly from several days. The other hostile witnesses have also stated about the love relationship between the accused and the deceased. Even the mother of the deceased, P.W.-11 Churki Marandi, has stated that both of them were living in her house properly from several days. The other hostile witnesses have also stated about the love relationship between the accused and the deceased. Though it is alleged in the fardbeyan that on 12.08.2008 in the night at about 11.00 P.M. the accused came to the house of the informant and took away the deceased along with him, but the evidences of P.W.-11 Churki Marandi, the mother of the deceased, clearly shows that after being handed over to the accused in panchayati, the accused used to live with the deceased at her parents'' house itself, whereas the evidence of P.W.-10 Dinesh Hansda shows that after being handed over to the accused in panchayati, the deceased was living with the accused at his house, and not at the house of her parents. Though in the F.I.R. and in the evidence of other witnesses and even in the evidence of P.W.-2 Dr. Chandreswar Prasad Sinha, there is no mention about any external injury upon the deceased, but the father P.W.-12 Haradhan Hansda has stated that he had seen stab injuries on the dead body of the deceased and there was plastic in the urinary track of the deceased. This evidence is not supported by any other evidence on record and it is not stated even in the F.I.R. Though there is allegation against the appellant to have taken away the deceased in the night on 12.08.2008 and the dead body was found on 15.08.2008, but the evidence of P.W.-2 Dr. Chandreswar Prasad Sinha shows that the time elapsed since death was about 4 to 5 days and his evidence appears to be very convincing, looking into the decomposed condition of the dead body, which was full of maggots and even the eyes were eaten away by the maggots. We are of the considered view that the entire prosecution case is full of contradictions doubts, and the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. We find it to be a fit case in which appellant Babudhan Marandi ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. As such, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 13. We find it to be a fit case in which appellant Babudhan Marandi ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. As such, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 11th March, 2010 and Order of sentence dated 12th March, 2010, passed by the learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dumka, in S.C. No.236 of 2008, convicting and sentencing the appellant Babudhan Marandi, for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the appellant is given the benefits of doubt and he is acquitted of the charges. The appellant Babudhan Marandi is in custody undergoing the sentence. He is directed to 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 to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.