Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 561 (JHR)

Sukal Soren v. State of Jharkhand

2018-03-09

H.C.MISHRA, RAJESH KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned amicus curiae, appointed by the Court for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction 4th and Order of sentence dated 29th of June, 2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 271 of 2004 / 137 of 2004, whereby, the appellant 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 life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the Chaukidar Katkan Mirdha, recorded on 22.5.2004, at about 02.00 A.M. in the night, at village-Patharadaha, P.S. Raneshwar, District Dumka, stating that at about 12.15 A.M. in the night, when the Chaukidar was in his house, he was informed that at village-Patharadaha, one lady was murdered. Upon getting the information, he came to the village, where, he met Manik Rai and Ganpati Rai, who informed him that in the night at about 10.30 P.M., they heard the screams of the old aged mother of the accused, whereupon they rushed there and saw the accused Sukal Soren fleeing away with an axe in his hand. They chased the accused, whereupon, accused threw the axe, and he was apprehended after the chase. The accused informed them that he had killed his mother, and thereafter, they came to the house and saw the dead body of the deceased with bleeding injuries on her head and neck. The accused was handed over to him by the villagers, but he could not find the axe in the night. He has also stated that he was informed by the villagers that the accused had turned out his wife from his house after assaulting her, and used to live with his mother, with whom also he used to quarrel. Claiming, that the accused had committed the murder of his old aged mother Dular Marandi by axe, the fardbeyan was given by the Chaukidar, on the basis of which, Raneshwar P.S. Case No. 35 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 482 of 2004, was instituted, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the sole accused Sukal Soren, 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 nine 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, accordingly, the fardbeyan, the formal F.I.R., and the seizure list were proved by a formal witness P.W.-8 Sushil Kumar Jha, a constable, which were marked as Exhibits-5, 6 and 7 respectively. One witness P.W.-5 Dhena Hansda, who is brother-in-law of the accused, has not stated anything against the accused, though he has claimed to have seen the dead body of the deceased with injuries on her head and neck. 5. P.W.-3 Ganpati Rai and P.W.-6 Manik Rai are the witnesses, who had apprehended the accused in the night of occurrence. Both these witnesses have stated that in the night at about 10 to 10.30 P.M., they heard the screams from the house of the deceased Dular Marandi and they came out of their house with a torch, and saw the accused Sukal Soren fleeing away with axe. He was chased by both these persons, whereupon, he threw the axe. He was apprehended after a chase, and he disclosed that he had committed the murder of his mother. The accused was brought to his house and they saw the dead body of the deceased with bleeding injuries. These witnesses have also stated that they were informed by the accused that there was some quarrel with his mother, due to which, he had assaulted his mother by tangi, causing her death. They have further stated that the accused was handed over to the Chaukidar. Both these witnesses are also the witnesses to the fardbeyan of the Chaukidar and they have proved their signatures on the fardbeyan, which were marked Exhibits-1 and 1(a). They are also the witnesses to the inquest report of the dead body and they have proved their signatures on the inquest report, which were marked Exhibits-2 and 2(a). Both these witnesses are also the witnesses to the fardbeyan of the Chaukidar and they have proved their signatures on the fardbeyan, which were marked Exhibits-1 and 1(a). They are also the witnesses to the inquest report of the dead body and they have proved their signatures on the inquest report, which were marked Exhibits-2 and 2(a). They have further stated that on the pointing out by the accused Sukal Soren, the axe was recovered from the agricultural field of Babulal Tudu and the seizure list was prepared, on which also they have identified their signatures, which were marked Exhibits-3 and 3(a). Both these witnesses have identified the accused in the Court. These witnesses were put to cross-examination, in which, P.W.-3 Ganpati Rai has denied the suggestion that he and Manik Rai were demanding the land form the accused for agriculture purpose, but the same was not given to them, and he has also denied the suggestion that they have falsely implicated the accused in this case. No such suggestion, however, was given to P.W.-6 Manik Rai. P.W.-3 Ganpati Rai has also stated in his cross-examination that there was a small child of the accused Sukal Soren, aged about 4 years in the house, and the accused Sukal Soren also was living with his mother. He has also stated that the houses of this witness and Manik Rai are adjacent to the house of Dular Marandi. P.W.-6 Manik Rai has also stated that the accused himself had disclosed that he had committed the murder of his mother. He has also denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused. 6. P.W.-1 Ganesh Rai, P.W.-2 Suniram Marandi and P.W.-4 Ram Krishna Rai are the witnesses, who had seen the dead body of Dular Marandi with injuries on head and neck at her house, and they have stated that they saw her son, the accused Sukal Soren present there, who had been apprehended by Ganpati Rai and Manik Rai, and before them also, the accused disclosed that after some quarrel with his mother, he had committed the murder of his mother. P.W.-2 Suniram Marandi, however, has stated in his cross-examination that he was informed about the occurrence by Ganpati Rai and Manik Rai. 7. P.W.-9 is Chaukidar Katkan Mirdha, who is the informant in the case. P.W.-2 Suniram Marandi, however, has stated in his cross-examination that he was informed about the occurrence by Ganpati Rai and Manik Rai. 7. P.W.-9 is Chaukidar Katkan Mirdha, who is the informant in the case. This witness has stated that in the night of occurrence, he heard that an old lady had been murdered, whereupon, he went there and met Ganpati Rai and Manik Rai. He was informed that the accused Sukal Soren had committed the murder of his mother, and they rushed with a torch, they saw the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence with an axe. This witness reached the house of the deceased and found the dead body of Dular Marandi with bleeding injuries on her head and neck. The police was informed, whereupon, the police came. His fardbeyan was recorded upon which, he put his signature. He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked Exhibit-1/1. He has stated that he had handed over the accused to the police. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that when he went to the place of occurrence, Ganpati Rai and Manik Rai were present there, and the accused was trying to flee away, but he was apprehended. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion of giving the false evidence. 8. P.W.-7 is Dr. Sitaram Sah, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 22.05.2004, and had found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body:- (1) Incised wound over left side of scalp 2” x 1” x bone deep over left temporal region. (2) Incised wound over left frontal region of scalp 1” x 1” x bone deep. On dissection of scalp under the bones found fractured. On further dissection brain and membrane were found lacerated and haematoma was in cranial cavity. (3) Incised wound 1” x ½” x ¼” left side of neck near left ear. (4) Incised wound 1” x ½” x ¼” over right side of the neck. This witness has stated that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries No. 1 and 2 or either one, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has also stated that injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon, such as tangi. This witness has stated that the time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. He has also stated that injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon, such as tangi. This witness has stated that the time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-4. 9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the accused has denied the evidence against him. He has stated in his statement that he is innocent and his mother died her natural death. No evidence, however, was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced for the offence as aforesaid. 10. Learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of 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, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire case depends only upon the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused, which is a very week piece of evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the weapon of offence, though is said to be recovered on the pointing out of this appellant, but since the I.O. has not been examined in the case, this fact could not be proved by the prosecution, nor the said weapon was ever produced in the Court. Leaned counsel further submitted that it has also come in the evidence that a child was also there in the house, but he was not examined and this also casts doubt on the prosecution case. Learned amicus curiae, accordingly, submitted that in the facts of the case, even though, the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case, the appellant was entitled at least to the benefits of doubt. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. P.W.-3 Ganpati Rai and P.W.-6 Manik Rai, are the persons, who had rushed to the place of occurrence, upon hearing the screams of the deceased mother of the accused, and they had seen the accused fleeing away with tangi in his hand. These witnesses chased the accused and by that time, accused had thrown away the axe, and upon being apprehended, the accused made the confessional statement before them that he had committed the murder of his mother, after some quarrel with her. P.W.-1 Ganesh Rai, P.W.-2 Suniram Marandi and P.W.-4 Ram Krishna Rai have also stated that they went to the place of occurrence, where they saw the dead body of Dular Marandi, with bleeding injuries. Her son, the accused Sukal Soren was present there, having been apprehended by Ganpati Rai and Manik Rai, and before these witnesses also the accused had confessed that he had committed the murder of his mother. Learned counsel further submits that P.W.-3 Ganpati Rai and P.W.-6 Manik Rai are also the witnesses to the seizure list and have stated that on the pointing out of the accused, weapon of offence was recovered from the agricultural filed of Babulal Tudu. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the State that the ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-7 Dr. Sitaram Sah, who had found four ante-mortem incised wounds on the head and neck of the deceased, causing laceration in the brain matter and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the normal course of nature. Learned counsel 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. The entire case depends only upon the extra judicial confession of the accused. As such, it is required to be examined whether the extra judicial confession made by the appellant is sufficient to form the basis of his conviction for the offence. In Sahadevan Vs. The entire case depends only upon the extra judicial confession of the accused. As such, it is required to be examined whether the extra judicial confession made by the appellant is sufficient to form the basis of his conviction for the offence. In Sahadevan Vs. State of T.N., reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law as follows:- "16. Upon a proper analysis of the above referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law." 13. Upon analysing the evidence on record in the light of the law laid down in Sahadevan's case (supra), we find that in the present case, the extra judicial confession was firstly made by the accused appellant before P.W.-3 Ganpati Rai and P.W.-6 Manik Rai, when he was apprehended by both these witnesses. The accused had confessed before them that after some quarrel with his mother, he assaulted her with axe causing her death. P.W.-1 Ganesh Rai, P.W.-2 Suniram Marandi and P.W.-4 Ram Krishna Rai, have also stated that when they reached the place of occurrence, they saw the dead body with bleeding injuries on the head and neck and they have also stated that the accused was apprehended by Ganpati Rai and Manik Rai. P.W.-1 Ganesh Rai, P.W.-2 Suniram Marandi and P.W.-4 Ram Krishna Rai, have also stated that when they reached the place of occurrence, they saw the dead body with bleeding injuries on the head and neck and they have also stated that the accused was apprehended by Ganpati Rai and Manik Rai. All these witnesses have fully supported the fact that the extra judicial confession was made by the accused before them also, stating that after some quarrel with his mother, he had assaulted her with axe causing her death. There is nothing on the record that the said extra judicial confession was made under any pressure, rather P.W.-6 Manik Rai has stated in his cross-examination that the accused himself had disclosed that he had committed the murder of his mother. By that time there was neither the presence of the police, nor of the Choukidar at the place of occurrence. The Chaukidar P.W.-9 Katkan Mirdha, who is informant of the case, has also fully supported the prosecution case, as informed to him by the witnesses. The recovery of the weapon of offence, was made, as stated by P.W.-3 Ganpati Rai and P.W.-6 Manik Rai, on the pointing out of the accused, from the field of Babulal Tudu. However, the fact remains that the I.O. has not been examined in this case and there is no proof of the recovery of the weapon of offence, on the basis of confessional statement of the accused, but the cogent and reliable evidence is there that on the pointing out by the accused, the axe was recovered. The evidence also shows that the dead body was found in the house of the accused. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant has only stated that his mother died a natural death in the courtyard of the house, which is not the fact at all, as is evident from the post-mortem report, proved by P.W.-7 Dr. Sitaram Sah, which clearly corroborated the ocular evidences of P.W.-3 Ganpati Rai, P.W.-6 Manik Rai, P.W.-1 Ganesh Rai, P.W.-2 Suniram Marandi and P.W.-4 Ram Krishna Rai, showing that there were four incised wounds on the head and neck of the deceased, and even the brain of the deceased was found lacerated and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. We are of the considered view, that since the dead body was found in the house of the accused, and there was no one else in the house, except the accused Sukal Soren, his deceased mother Dular Marandi, and a small child aged about four years, it was for the accused to explain as to how his mother was murdered and by whom. There is no explanation on this point by the accused Sukal Soren, rather he has only stated that his mother died a natural death, which is not a fact. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the defence due to non-examination of the I.O., as nothing has been taken from any witness in their cross-examination to show that they had made any improvement in their deposition, over their statement recorded by the police. The submission of learned amicus curie that the child witness has not been examined, cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution, as it has come in evidence that he was a small child, aged about only four years only, and he may not be capable to depose. Even otherwise, the time of occurrence being about 10.00 to 10.30 P.M. in the night, it was the time for such a small child to sleep. In the present case, the extra judicial confession made by the accused appellant, before P.W.-3 Ganpati Rai, P.W.-6 Manik Rai, soon upon his apprehension, and before P.W.-1 Ganesh Rai, P.W.-2 Suniram Marandi and P.W.-4 Ram Krishna Rai, when they reached the place of occurrence, inspires confidence, there being evidence to show that it was made voluntarily by the accused, and there being nothing on the record to show that it was not voluntary. The cogent and reliable evidence is there that on the pointing out by the accused, the weapon of offence, i.e., the axe was recovered. The manner of occurrence as disclosed in the extra judicial confession, is also corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-7 Dr. Sitaram Sah and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-4. The cogent and reliable evidence is there that on the pointing out by the accused, the weapon of offence, i.e., the axe was recovered. The manner of occurrence as disclosed in the extra judicial confession, is also corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-7 Dr. Sitaram Sah and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-4. On the basis of the evidence brought on record, we are of the considered view that the extra judicial confession made by the appellant is sufficient to form the basis of his conviction for the offence and the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the sole accused Sukal Soren, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubts. As such, impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence needs no interference by this Court. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 29th of June, 2005, passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 271 of 2004 / 137 of 2004, convicting and sentencing the appellant Sukal Soren, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which, we hereby, affirm. The appellant is already in custody, undergoing the sentence. 15. Before parting with the Judgment, we must record that we have been given able assistance by the learned amicus curiae Mr. Ashish Verma, and we direct the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, to make the payment of prescribed remuneration to the learned amicus curiae. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, for the needful. 16. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.