Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 703 (JHR)

Raju Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-03-13

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mrs. Bakshi Vibha and Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta representing the State. 2. This appellant has faced conviction under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment dated 23.01.2013 in Sessions Trial No. 140/2011 rendered by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in case of default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years; further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in case of default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year, by order dated 31.01.2013. All the sentences awarded were to run concurrently. The appellant being aggrieved, has preferred the instant criminal appeal and is presently in custody undergoing sentence. 3. Budhni Devi, maternal grandmother of the deceased Phulmani Devi (wife of the appellant Raju Singh), is the informant upon whose fardbeyan recorded at 17.30 hours on 17.06.2011 at Bano Bazar by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Ratan Lal Yadav, the formal FIR bearing Bano P.S. Case No. 16/2011 dated 17.06.2011 was registered under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code at 20.00 hours. The informant alleged that on 17.06.2011 after the breakfast, she along with Phulmani Devi (deceased) and her husband Raju Singh (appellant) went to Bakra Pahad Forest to collect firewood. While she was collecting firewood at some distance, she heard an altercation / quarrel between her maternal granddaughter and her husband (appellant). The informant who was picking up the firewood was chased by Raju Singh (appellant) with an intent to assault her. She fled away and hide herself in a bush. Thereafter, Raju Singh chased her maternal granddaughter and started assaulting her with a tangi. The informant got scared and came back to her house and informed the father of Phulmani Devi, Ramesh Singh (P.W.3) that at Bakra Pahad Forest, Raju Singh, husband of Phulmani Devi, was assaulting Phulmani with a tangi. On hearing this, father of Phulmani Devi, Ramesh Singh accompanied the informant towards Bakra Pahad Forest and when they reached there, they saw Phulmani Devi dead. On hearing this, father of Phulmani Devi, Ramesh Singh accompanied the informant towards Bakra Pahad Forest and when they reached there, they saw Phulmani Devi dead. Her dead body had injuries on neck and around it and tangi was lying close by. Thereafter, the informant along with the father of Phulmani Devi, Ramesh Singh proceeded towards Bano P.S. and on their away, met the police official of Bano P.S where her fardbeyan was recorded. On this assertion, she alleged that her maternal granddaughter has been killed by her husband Raju Singh, son of late Fagu Singh, village P.S.-Bano by means of a tangi and he had concealed the dead body in a ditch. On this fardbeyan, she inscribed her right thumb impression and Mahavir Singh and Mahesh Singh (P.Ws. 1&2) also inscribed their signature as witness. 4. Investigation commenced thereafter and on its conclusion, charge sheet bearing no. 35/2011 dated 30.06.2011 was submitted under sections 302/2013 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused / appellant herein. After cognizance and commitment, charges were framed against the sole accused Raju Singh under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code on 20.10.2011 by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega. Charges were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During course of trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses as under : P.W.1 Mahvir Singh, the fardbeyan witness in his short deposition, identified and proved his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.1. He also stated that he came to know of the incidence through the informant Budhni Devi that Phulmani Devi has been killed in the jungle. In his cross-examination, he stated that nothing was seized in his presence and the accused Raju Singh is son-in-law of his brother. P.W.2 Mahesh Singh identified and proved his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.1/1. He stated that the deceased was his niece who had been killed. He had not seen the incidence. He denied that Budhni Devi, informant, has stated anything to him. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he stated that the accused is his son-in-law. P.W.3 Ramesh Singh is the father of the victim Phulmani Devi. He stated that the deceased was his niece who had been killed. He had not seen the incidence. He denied that Budhni Devi, informant, has stated anything to him. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he stated that the accused is his son-in-law. P.W.3 Ramesh Singh is the father of the victim Phulmani Devi. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that his daughter Phulmani Devi was killed in the forest and he was informed about it by the informant Budhni Devi (P.W.4). He had seen the dead body, but he had not seen as to who had killed the deceased. He identified the accused Raju Singh. In his cross-examination, he stated that the accused is his son-in-law. He denied that Budhni Devi had not told anything to him. P.W.4 Budhni Devi is the informant on whose fardbeyan law was put into motion. She has deposed as an eyewitness and supported the entire prosecution case. She has stated that Phulmani Devi was her maternal granddaughter. Her husband Raju Singh is present in the court. Phulmani Devi was killed about six months back by Raju Singh. She further states that she along with Phulmani Devi and the accused had gone to the forest to collect firewood when Raju Singh assaulted Phulmani Devi and killed her by means of a tangi. She states that she was killed in her presence. Phulmani was calling her Grandmother to save her. The informant returned to her village and informed the witness Mahavir Singh (P.W.1), Mahesh Singh (P.W.2) and Ramesh Singh (P.W.3) about the incidence. She stated that she had narrated the incidence to the police. She also stated that after giving her fardbeyan, which was read over to her in front of the witnesses Mahavir and Mahesh Singh, she had inscribed her right thumb impression on the fardbeyan. In her cross-examination, she states that her vision is poor. She further states that Phulmani was at a distance of 20 steps from her. She also states that the incidence was narrated to others. She denied that she had not seen the occurrence. P.W.5 Shankar Singh has been declared hostile on the request of the prosecution. P.W.6 Ratan Lal Yadav is the Investigating Officer of this case. He had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. He has identified and proved the fardbeyan as Ext.2. She also states that the incidence was narrated to others. She denied that she had not seen the occurrence. P.W.5 Shankar Singh has been declared hostile on the request of the prosecution. P.W.6 Ratan Lal Yadav is the Investigating Officer of this case. He had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. He has identified and proved the fardbeyan as Ext.2. He has also stated that the witnesses Mahavir Singh and Mahesh Singh inscribed their signature on the fardbeyan. He has identified and proved the formal FIR in the handwriting of literate constable Mithilesh Sharma, which has been marked as Ext.3. According to this witness, he took over the investigation of this case and took restatement of the informant. Thereafter, he inspected the place of occurrence, which has been described as under: This place of occurrence is at village Sodda Bakra Pahad Forest with the following boundaries: in the north, there is a tree of Jungali Roka, in the south there is a tree of Kachanar, on the east is a rock slab and on the west is Kusum Tree along with a ditch. From the place of occurrence, he had recovered a tangi having length of 12 cm and width of 6 cm which was having a wooden bait having length of 28 1/2 cm which was seized in presence of independent witnesses. He had proved and identified the seizure list as Ext.4. He stated that as it was raining at that point of time, therefore, blood stain on the tangi got washed away. He had prepared the inquest report and thereafter sent the dead body for postmortem to the Sadar Hospitel, Simdega. He had recorded the statement of Mahavir Singh (P.W.1), Mahesh Singh (P.W.2), Ramesh Singh (P.W.3) and Shankar Singh (P.W.5). All these witnesses have supported the occurrence. After finding the case true, he had submitted charge sheet. In his cross-examination, he stated that the seizure list is not with him at the present. He had seized tangi from the place of occurrence, but did not sent it for forensic examination as the blood stains have been washed out due to rain. He denied that he had not inspected the place of occurrence and not recorded the statement of the witnesses or investigation was faulty. P.W.7 is the Medical Officer Dr. He had seized tangi from the place of occurrence, but did not sent it for forensic examination as the blood stains have been washed out due to rain. He denied that he had not inspected the place of occurrence and not recorded the statement of the witnesses or investigation was faulty. P.W.7 is the Medical Officer Dr. Rajesh Kumar who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Phulmani Devi aged 22 years at 1.00 pm on 18.06.2011 at Sadar Hospital, Simdega. On general examination, he found that the body was not decomposed and rigor mortis was absent in all four limbs; average built was good. On external examination, following injuries were found on the dead body : i. Sharp cut injury 2” x 1” 1”on left side jaw: ii. Cut injury 5”x1”x1” over left cheek to left mandibular angel. iii. Sharp cut injury 4”x1”x1” over left arm 4 in number about 3”x1” deep. iv. Sharp cut injury 3”x1” deep x1” wide over back of neck oblique. v. Sharp cut injury 3”x2”x1” wide over lower back of neck. On Internal examination, he found the viscera pale. He opined that all the injury are ante mortem in nature and time since injury within 24 hours. According to the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage. The weapon of assault is a sharp cutting weapon such as Tangi. He has proved and identified the postmortem report in his pen and signature as Ext.5. In his cross-examination, he stated that all the injuries were caused by the same weapon and such injures could not be possible by fall. All these exhibits 1 to 5 were adduced without objection. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of the Cr. PC where he denied his involvement. In answer to question no. 3, he stated that the victim had fallen down herself and he had been falsely implicated. 7. Learned Trial Court considered the evidence on record and submissions of learned counsel for the parties and held that the prosecution have been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he was convicted for the aforesaid charges. 8. 7. Learned Trial Court considered the evidence on record and submissions of learned counsel for the parties and held that the prosecution have been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he was convicted for the aforesaid charges. 8. We have scanned the entire evidence in our exercise to see, whether the findings of the learned Trial Court are sound and based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 9. Learned Amicus has tried to draw loopholes in the case of the prosecution and the findings recorded thereupon by the learned Trial Court. According to her, the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the sole testimony of the informant (P.W.4), maternal grandmother of the deceased Phulmani Devi. Her testimony has significant improvement from her fardbeyan, since during trial, she states that the incidence was committed in her presence. The prosecution witnesses 1, 2 and 5 who were told about the incidence by the informant, have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.3, father of the deceased, also does not prove the relevant facts in issue showing the presence of the informant at the time of assault by the accused / appellant in the forest. There are no other eyewitness to the assault. It has come in the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.6) that it was raining on the day and therefore, the tangi did not bear any blood stain. The case of the prosecution rested upon the assault by tangi and if tangi did not contain blood stain, then the culpability of the appellant and his connection with the assault has not been adequately proved by the prosecution. The appellant in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.PC, has clearly stated that she had herself fallen and this appellant has been falsely implicated. The prosecution had not been able to show any reason or motive behind the crime. As such, it is not safe to uphold the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the statement of the sole prosecution witness, P.W.4 for the charge of murder. She submits that the prosecution has not brought any evidence on record to substantiate the charge under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court. She submits that the prosecution has not brought any evidence on record to substantiate the charge under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court. According to him, the case of the prosecution set up through the mouth of the informant Budhni Devi, maternal grandmother of the deceased Phulmani Devi, has been duly supported by the testimony of her as P.W.4, an eyewitness to the occurrence, during the trial. The case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of P.W.4 supported by P.W.3, father of the deceased. The Investigating Officer (P.W.6) who has seized the tangi from the place of occurrence has proved the place of occurrence in the Bakra Pahad Forest. The injury on the body of the deceased by sharp cutting weapon like tangi, has also been proved by the medical evidence of Dr. Rajesh Kumar who has conducted postmortem on the dead body. Thus, prosecution has nailed the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt and the defence had not been able to discredit the evidence of these prosecution witnesses in cross-examination during the trial. The impugned judgment is therefore well considered. The appeal is devoid of merit and is fit to be dismissed. 11. As observed herein before, we have scanned the entire material evidence on record and dealt with it at length in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment. We find that the case of the prosecution is short and simple and does not have any broken edges or holes which remained unexplained by the prosecution and could have created a doubt about the necessary relevant facts in issues relatable to this case. We find that the case of the prosecution is short and simple and does not have any broken edges or holes which remained unexplained by the prosecution and could have created a doubt about the necessary relevant facts in issues relatable to this case. The presence of the informant along with the deceased and the accused at the time of occurrence as explained by her during trial in support of the first information story; the place of occurrence described by her as supported by P.W.6, the Investigating Officer; the use of a sharp cutting weapon of assault i.e., Tangi seized from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer, (P.W.6); presence of sharp cutting injuries caused by the weapon like tangi which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of circumstances and that the death ensued due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of these ante mortem injuries, all have been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 6 & 7 who are consistent and reliable. We find that the defence has not been able to discredit the testimony of any of these witnesses on any count during trial. In a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code which rests on direct evidence of eye witness account, absence of proof of motive would not take away the seriousness of the charge, if the prosecution has been able to prove the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence of murder of his wife Phulmani Devi beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. We also find that the accused has offered practically no explanation for the death of the deceased, though she was present in his company at the time of occurrence. Read and analyzed in such fashion, we do not find any reason to doubt the prosecution case or notice any legal or factual infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. As such, the appeal is devoid of merits and is fit to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent to the court concerned along with the copy of the judgment. 12. Before parting, we appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae during hearing of this case. Let her admissible legal remuneration be borne by the High Court Legal Services Committee. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent to the court concerned along with the copy of the judgment. 12. Before parting, we appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae during hearing of this case. Let her admissible legal remuneration be borne by the High Court Legal Services Committee. The Secretary, HCLSC shall do the needful on production of a certified copy of the judgment along with an application within a period of four weeks therefrom.