Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1994 (JHR)

Karam Singh Munda v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-12-10

RATNAKER BHENGRA, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2019
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2016 and the order of sentence of R. I for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 2009. 2. The appellant is husband of Jasuwa Devi, the deceased. On the basis of fardbeyan of Sona Devi, sister of the deceased, which was recorded on 09.11.2008, a First Information Report was lodged on 14.11.2008 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and the appellant has faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of his wife. 3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined six witnesses; the informant is P.W.2. 4. In her fardbeyan, the informant has stated that her sister, namely, Jasuwa Devi had come to her house on 05.11.2008 because on Dipawali her husband fell from the tree and got injured. In the evening of 08.11.2008, at about 7:00 p.m, Jasuwa Devi was cooking food. At that time her husband was also sitting by her side while she and her husband were sitting outside by the bone-fire. When she heard sound of utensils inside her house she had gone inside the house and found Jasuwa Devi lying unconscious, blood was oozing from her head. Thereafter, Jasuwa Devi was brought to Khunti Hospital on a tempo where she was administering first aid by the doctor, however, she was referred for further treatment at RIMS, Ranchi. She was treated at RIMS, Ranchi, however, in the morning of 09.11.2008 she succumbed to the injuries. Her statement was recorded at the Department of Neuro Surgery, RIMS at 14:05 hrs. In the court also the informant has stated that on the day when her sister was found unconscious and in injured condition inside her house she along with her husband was sitting outside by the bone-fire and when she heard the sound of utensils she has gone inside the house and found her sister lying on the ground. On her own evidence, the informant has not seen the appellant assaulting his wife. In the fardbeyan also she has not stated that she has seen the appellant assaulting her sister. 5. On her own evidence, the informant has not seen the appellant assaulting his wife. In the fardbeyan also she has not stated that she has seen the appellant assaulting her sister. 5. The husband of the informant has also not claimed that he has seen the appellant assaulting his wife and the other prosecution witnesses are formal and hearsay witnesses. 6. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, who has conducted the post-mortem examination at 4:00 p.m on 09.11.2008, has found the following injuries on Jasuwa Devi : "Abrasion (I) 8 cm x 4 cm right forearm medial site middle part (II) 4 cm x 2 cm front of right wrist (III) 2 cm x 1 cm back of right palm. Lacerated wound stitched (I) 7 cm x 1 cm with four stitch over occipital region of head. (II) 5 cm x 1/2 cm with three stitch over occiptal region lower part situated 9 cm below from previous injury." 7. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance like sabbal. According to the doctor, death of Jasuwa Devi which was caused due to head injuries and has occurred within 3 hrs. to 18 hrs. 8. The doctor has found one wound with four stitches and one wound with three stitches over occipital region of Jasuwa Devi. According to the prosecution she was taken to the Khunti Hospital where she was given first aid treatment, however, the doctor who examined her has not been produced during the trial. What treatment was provided at Khunti Hospital has also not been brought on record. The prosecution has not produced the doctor, who has treated Jasuwa Devi at RIMS, Ranchi, for his examination during the trial. The doctor has stated in his cross-examination that the injuries found on Jasuwa Devi are possible by a fall from the bus. 9. From the above evidence, all that the prosecution has been able to establish is that in the fateful evening the appellant was in the house of Sona Devi. 10. On such facts, particularly, since the doctor has failed to render a definite opinion about the injury which has proved fatal, in our opinion, benefit must be extended to the accused [refer, " Vijay Singh and Another Vs. State of M.P, (2014) 12 SCC 293 ". 11. 10. On such facts, particularly, since the doctor has failed to render a definite opinion about the injury which has proved fatal, in our opinion, benefit must be extended to the accused [refer, " Vijay Singh and Another Vs. State of M.P, (2014) 12 SCC 293 ". 11. Besides the above, there is considerable delay in lodging the First Information Report which was lodged on 14.11.2008; fardbeyan of Sona Devi was recorded in the afternoon of 09.11.2008. The prosecution has failed to explain the delay caused in registration of the First Information Report. The main investigating officer of this case has not been examined and, therefore, the defence was handicapped in eliciting the reason for delay in lodging the First Information Report. It is elementary in every criminal case that prompt registration of the First Information Report brings spontaneity and credibility to the allegation against an accused. In " Thulia Kali Vs. State of T.N., (1972) 3 SCC 393 ", the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "12. .............First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained..........." 12. From the attending facts and circumstances of this case a reasonable doubt has arisen that after deliberation a First Information Report has been lodged implicating the appellant in the crime. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained..........." 12. From the attending facts and circumstances of this case a reasonable doubt has arisen that after deliberation a First Information Report has been lodged implicating the appellant in the crime. The manner in which the incident has been portrayed by the informant and her husband; the significant fact being death of Jasuwa Devi in their house, raises serious doubt on complicity of the appellant in the crime. 13. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt and, accordingly, his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 2009 is set-aside. 14. The appellant, namely, Karam Singh Munda who is in custody shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other case. 15. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1474 of 2017 is allowed. 16. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX. 17. Let the lower-court records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.