Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 710 (JHR)

Kauleshwar Rana v. State of Jharkhand

2019-03-13

H.C.MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. As both these appeals arise out of the same impugned Judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State in both these appeals. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 30.10.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Chatra, in S.T. No.118 of 2007, whereby, both these appellants, who are husband and wife, have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Kauleshwar Rana has also been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the appellant Kauleshwar Rana has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, and his both sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the fardbeyan of the informant Most. Shanti, the mother of the deceased Aginta Devi, recorded at village Belhar, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, on 27.1.2007, at about 11:30 A.M., wherein she has stated that her husband had died earlier and she was maintaining her livelihood working as a labour. Due to poverty she had married her daughter Aginta Devi about five years ago to the accused Kauleshwar Rana, at Bhadra Kali Temple, even though he was already married, as he had no issues from his first wife. Her daughter was kept properly for about 2½ to 3 years, but thereafter she was being subjected to cruelty and torture, including assaults, by her husband Kauleshwar Rana and his first wife Dewanti Devi. Her daughter had also given birth to a child who died after about nine months, and thereafter also her daughter was being subjected to cruelty, torture and assaults by both these accused. On 27.01.2007 at about 7:00 A.M., she was informed that her daughter had died, whereupon she, along with her other relatives came to village Belhar, at her daughter's place, and found her daughter lying dead in the house. There were bleeding from her mouth and swelling in her neck. On 27.01.2007 at about 7:00 A.M., she was informed that her daughter had died, whereupon she, along with her other relatives came to village Belhar, at her daughter's place, and found her daughter lying dead in the house. There were bleeding from her mouth and swelling in her neck. She was informed that on the previous day both the accused had assaulted her daughter to death, and they were also trying to dispose of the dead body, but they could not do so due to the interference by the villagers. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Itkhori P.S. Case No. 9 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No. 54 of 2007, was instituted against both the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 302, 120-B / 34, 494 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against both these accused for the offences under Sections 302 / 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and against the accused Kauleshwar Rana, charge was also framed for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial 9 witnessed were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-6 Musafir Rana has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case at all. 6. P.W.-1 Shanti Devi is the informant in the case and the mother of the deceased. This witness has stated that she had married her daughter Aginta Devi to Kauleshwar Rana. She was the second wife of Kauleshwar Rana, as he was earlier married to Dewanti Devi, who is still alive. She married her daughter due to the fact that Kauleshwar Rana had no issue from his first wife. For about two years her daughter was kept properly, but thereafter she was being assaulted and tortured by both the accused persons. For six months she had brought her daughter to her place, but Kauleshwar sent his father for bringing his wife. She refused for the same, but under the pressure of her agnates, she sent her daughter. For about two years her daughter was kept properly, but thereafter she was being assaulted and tortured by both the accused persons. For six months she had brought her daughter to her place, but Kauleshwar sent his father for bringing his wife. She refused for the same, but under the pressure of her agnates, she sent her daughter. Her daughter had also given birth to a child, but he was killed by Dewanti Devi and both the accused persons also killed her daughter. They had not informed her about the death of her grandson. When she went there, she found the dead body of her daughter with bleeding from the mouth, and there was swelling in her neck. The police arrived there and apprehended both the accused. The police also recorded her fardbeyan, on which she had put her thumb impression. Her statement was again taken by the police on the same day. She has identified the accused Kauleshwar Rana present in the Court, and claimed to identify the other accused also. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was not ready to marry her daughter with the accused, but under the pressure of her agnates she had married her daughter to him. She had not visited the in-laws' place of her daughter before she was killed, but she was informed about the assaults by her daughter herself. The child was aged about nine months when he died, but she had not filed any case against the accused for the same. She has admitted that she had not seen the occurrence and she has denied the suggestions that her daughter had died a natural death, and that she had lodged the false case. 7. P.W.-2 Girijesh Prasad, P.W.-3 Ranjeet Rana, the cousin of the deceased and P.W.-4 Rajendra Rana, the maternal uncle of the deceased, have also supported the prosecution case stating that the deceased was the second wife of Kauleshwar Rana and she was being subjected to cruelty and assaults. They had accompanied the informant upon getting the information about her death, and they had seen the dead body with injuries. All these witnesses are also witness to the fardbeyan of the informant. P.W.-2 Girijesh Prasad has proved the fardbeyan, which was marked as Exhibit-1. In their cross-examination, P.W.-2 Girijesh Prasad and P.W.-3 Ranjeet Rana have denied the suggestion that the deceased had died due to illness. All these witnesses are also witness to the fardbeyan of the informant. P.W.-2 Girijesh Prasad has proved the fardbeyan, which was marked as Exhibit-1. In their cross-examination, P.W.-2 Girijesh Prasad and P.W.-3 Ranjeet Rana have denied the suggestion that the deceased had died due to illness. There is nothing else of much importance in the cross-examination of these witnesses. 8. P.W.-5 Vijay Dangi is the witness to the inquest report only, and in his cross-examination he has stated that the deceased was properly kept by the accused Kauleshwar Rana, and he has no knowledge as to how she died. 9. P.W.-9 Shuresh Rana is the uncle of the deceased. He has stated that the deceased was the wife of Kauleshwar Rana and he had gone to the place of the deceased, upon getting the information of her death. He had seen the dead body with bleeding from the mouth and swelling in the neck. He has also stated that the deceased was the second wife of the accused Kauleshwar Rana, but he has stated that the accused persons were keeping the deceased properly. 10. P.W.-7 Niranjan Oraon is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that he was posted at Itkhori Police Station and the case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Most. Shanti, and was handed over for investigation to him. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and had visited the house of the deceased, which he has detailed. He had found the dead body in the house with cut in the lower lip. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, who supported the prosecution case. He has stated that the deceased was the second wife of the accused. He arrested the accused from their house and submitted the charge-sheet in the case. He has proved the fardbeyan, which was earlier marked Exhibit-1. He has proved the endorsement on the fardbeyan which was marked Exhibit-1/1, and has also proved the formal F.I.R., which was marked Exhibit-2. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that there was no pressing mark on the neck of the deceased. He had arrested the accused persons from their house, after recording the statements of the witnesses. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 11. P.W.-8 is Dr. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that there was no pressing mark on the neck of the deceased. He had arrested the accused persons from their house, after recording the statements of the witnesses. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 11. P.W.-8 is Dr. N.K.P. Jaiswal, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 27.01.2007, and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- 1. Blood fluid coming out from mouth. 2. Reddish brown bruise with swelling on front of neck 4” x 3”. Upon exploration there was subcutaneous haematoma, both carotid vessel lacerated. Fracture of thyroid cartilage, trachea bruised and red, and there was fracture of trachea rings. 3. Reddish brown abrasion on chin. 1” x ¾”. 4. Reddish bruise 6” x 4” on upper front part of chest. Upon exploration there was subcutaneous haematoma underneath and fracture of right second and third ribs. This witness had stated that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance, and the death was caused due to asphyxia as a result from strangulation. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-3. 12. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the evidence against them. The accused Kauleshwar Rana has admitted that he had married the deceased in the life time of his first wife. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below as aforesaid. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 the Indian Penal Code, passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 the Indian Penal Code, passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He has very fairly submitted that he has nothing to say about the conviction of the appellant Kauleshwar Rana for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, as the second marriage in the lifetime of the first wife is an admitted fact by the accused, in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence of murder, and no motive has been proved for commission of the crime. Learned counsel submitted that there is only circumstantial evidence against both these accused and the chain of circumstances is not so complete so as to point out only towards the guilt of the accused persons. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that both the appellants ought to have been given at least the benefits of doubt for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 the Indian Penal Code. 14. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer, submitting that P.W.-1 Shanti Devi, the informant, P.W.-2 Girijesh Prasad, P.W.-3 Ranjeet Rana and P.W.-4 Rajendra Rana have fully supported the prosecution case stating that the deceased was the second wife of the accused Kauleshwar Rana, and the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and assaults by both the accused persons. Learned counsel has submitted that in the house only three persons were living, i.e., both these accused and deceased, and the dead body of the deceased was found with ante-mortem injuries, which is proved by P.W.-8 Dr. N.K.P. Jaiswal, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-3. Learned counsel submitted that the chain of circumstances is thus complete to show that both these accused persons had committed the murder of the deceased and there can be no other explanation for the death of the deceased. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 15. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the evidence on record, we find that admittedly there is no eye witness to the occurrence of murder. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 15. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the evidence on record, we find that admittedly there is no eye witness to the occurrence of murder. There is only circumstantial evidence against both these appellants. The second marriage of Kauleshwar Rana with the deceased, during the life time of his first wife is an admitted fact, and as such there is no challenge to the conviction and sentence of the appellant Kauleshwar Rana for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. P.W.-1 Shanti Devi, the mother of the deceased, P.W.-2 Girijesh Prasad, P.W.-3 Ranjeet Rana, the cousin of the deceased and P.W.-4 Rajendra Rana, the maternal uncle of the deceased have fully supported the fact that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and torture, including assaults, by both these accused persons. The fact remains that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of these accused persons with ante-mortem injuries, as proved by P.W.-8 Dr. N.K.P. Jaiswal, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-3. His evidence would show that there were subcutaneous haematoma in both carotid vessels and there were fractures of thyroid cartilage and the rings of trachea. Apart from that there were fractures of second and third ribs on the right side. He has clearly opined that the death was caused due to strangulation. 16. In view of the admitted position that the deceased was the second wife of the accused Kauleshwar Rana, whom he had married in the lifetime of his first wife, the accused Devanti Devi, as also in view of the evidence that she was being subjected to cruelty and torture, including assaults by both these accused, and the dead body of the deceased was found in their house, with ante-mortem injuries, it is for these appellants to explain as to how the death of the deceased was caused. There is no explanation on the part of both these accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The suggestion was given on behalf of the defence to P.W.-1 Shanti Devi, that the deceased had died her natural death, and suggestions were given to P.W.-2 Girijesh Prasad and P.W.-3 Ranjeet Rana, that the deceased had died due to illness, which were denied by these witnesses. The suggestions were absolutely false suggestions, and they had no explanation as to how the deceased died with ante-mortem injuries in their house, when both of them were present there. In our considered view the chain of circumstances is so complete in the present case, that it points only towards the guilt of both the accused persons and not to any other hypothesis. As such, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against both these appellants 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. 17. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 30.10.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Chatra, in S.T. No.118 of 2007, convicting and sentencing the appellants Kauleshwar Rana and Dewanti Devi @ Dewatiya Devi, for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the appellant Kauleshwar Rana also for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. Both these appellants are in custody, undergoing the sentence. 18. Before parting with this Judgment, we wish to record that P.W.-1 Shanti Devi, the mother of the deceased, is the victim of crime in this case, and she is entitled to be duly compensated under the Victim Compensation Scheme, under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We, accordingly, direct the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Service Authority, Ranchi, to take up the matter with the concerned District Legal Services Authority, so that P.W.-1 Shanti Devi is duly compensated under the Victim Compensation Scheme, at an early date. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, for the needful. 19. We find no merit in both these appeals, which are accordingly, dismissed. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, for the needful. 19. We find no merit in both these appeals, which are accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.