Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 753 (JHR)

Suresh Ravidas @ Ram v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-03-27

H.C.MISHRA, SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
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 19 th May 2009 and order of sentence dated 20.05.2009, passed by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2006/140 of 2009, whereby, the sole 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 R.I. for life for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Kaili Devi, mother of the deceased Pramila Devi, recorded on 20.09.2005 at her Village Panjradih, P.S. Meharma, District Godda, at about 5.30 A.M. in the morning, wherein she has stated that her daughter Pramila Devi was married to the accused Suresh Ram about 10 years ago, who is resident of a village at Utter Pradesh. For about last two years, her daughter was living at her parents'' place, and her husband Suresh Ram had also came there about 5 to 6 months ago, and living with them. For the last 2 to 3 days he was asking to take his wife along with him, but her daughter was saying that she would go after the harvesting. On the previous date, i.e., on 19.09.2005, at about 3.00 P.M., her daughter along with her husband were alone in the house, as the informant had gone for cutting grass, and her husband had gone to a village in connection with a panchayati, and when her husband returned from the panchayati, he found that his son-in-law was not in the house and Pramila Devi was shouting in injured condition, and she told her father that Suresh Ram had assaulted her by tangi on her head and had fled away. In the meantime the informant also arrived there. Pramila Devi was being taken to Hospital, but she died in the way, and thereafter they returned back to their house. In the meantime the informant also arrived there. Pramila Devi was being taken to Hospital, but she died in the way, and thereafter they returned back to their house. Claiming that her daughter had been killed by Suresh Ram by assaulting her with an axe, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which, Meharma (Thakur Gangti) P.S. Case No. 190 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 973 of 2005, was instituted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the sole accused, and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet in this case. 4. Upon 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. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses, including the Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-2 Patwari Ravidas, has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. Two witnesses have been examined as Court Witnesses. As the I.O. has not been examined in this case, the fardbeyan, endorsement on the fardbeyan and the formal F.I.R., have been proved by a formal witness C.W.-1 Madan Tiwari, which have been marked as Exts. 2, 2/1 & 3 respectively. 6. P.W.-3 Kaili Devi, is the informant of the case and mother of the deceased. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place about 19 months earlier, at about 3.00 P.M. She had left her daughter and son-in-law in the house and had gone for harvesting paddy. Her husband had gone to a village for a panchayati. Upon hearing the noise she came rushing to her house, and found Pramila Devi with bleeding injuries in her head. Her daughter informed that her husband Suresh had assaulted her by axe and had fled away. She has stated that the incident had taken place due to the fact that for the last 2 to 3 days both of them were quarrelling. Her daughter was being taken to the hospital, but she died in the way. This witness has identified the accused in the Court. She has stated that the incident had taken place due to the fact that for the last 2 to 3 days both of them were quarrelling. Her daughter was being taken to the hospital, but she died in the way. This witness has identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that in the morning she had gone to harvest the paddy, and her daughter had also accompanied her, but her daughter had returned back to her house. She has also stated that her statement was recorded by the police. When she reached her house, her son-in-law was not there, only her daughter was there. She has also stated that her son-in-law is the resident of a village in the State of Utter Pradesh. She has also stated that this was the second marriage of her daughter with the accused, after her first husband had left her. She was living at her house for about 2 years prior to the date of occurrence, and her husband was also living with them for about 4 to 5 months. She has denied the suggestion that she had gone to cut grass on the date of occurrence. She has also stated that she had been informed about the occurrence by her grandson, who had come to the field and informed her that his father had assaulted his mother. She has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 7. P.W.-1 Dr. Dileep Kumar Choudhary had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 20.09.2005, and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body :- 1. Sharp cut injury over left parietal area of scalp 2&1/2"x1"x1/2", parietal bone cut completely in the middle of the base of the wound in 1&1/2" area. On extension of the wound after dissection the meninges found torn and blood in the cranial cavity. 2. Sharp cut injury in the left temporal region 3"x1&1/2"x1&1/2" at the junctional region of temporo-parietal area. On dissection the depth of the wound found extended to the middle cranial fossa with bleeding in the aforesaid cranial fossa. He has stated that the injury was caused by sharp heavy cutting instrument such as an axe, and the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of the above injuries. On dissection the depth of the wound found extended to the middle cranial fossa with bleeding in the aforesaid cranial fossa. He has stated that the injury was caused by sharp heavy cutting instrument such as an axe, and the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of the above injuries. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which has been marked as Ext. 1. 8. The father of the deceased has been examined as a Court witness, C.W.-2 Rajendra Das. This witness has also supported the prosecution case stating that the deceased was his daughter, who has married to Suresh Ram, resident of a village in the State of Utter Pradesh, about 10 years ago. They had a son and a daughter out of the wedlock. His daughter was living at her in-laws'' house, but at the time of occurrence she was living at his place. His son-in-law had also come about 5 to 6 months ago, and was living together. He was trying to take his wife back, but his daughter was saying that she would go after the harvesting, due to which they used to quarrel. This witness has stated that there was a panchayati in a village, in which he had gone, and his wife had also gone to harvest the paddy. When he returned from the panchayati, at about 3.00 P.M., he saw his daughter shouting in the house in injured condition, and she informed him that her husband Suresh Ram had assaulted her by axe and had fled away. She was being taken to hospital, but she died in the way. Thereafter they returned back and the police was informed, and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that his statement was recorded by the police on the next day of the occurrence. During the period his son-in-law was living with them, there was quarrel between his daughter and son-in-law. He has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 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 on behalf of the defence. During the period his son-in-law was living with them, there was quarrel between his daughter and son-in-law. He has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 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 on behalf of the defence. On the basis of the materials available on record, the accused-appellant was found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, for the offence as aforesaid. 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, inasmuch as, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The case rests on the alleged dying declaration of the deceased made before her father and mother. This dying declaration is absolutely doubtful, in view of the admitted fact that there is allegation of quarrel between the wife and husband. Learned counsel also submitted that no independent witness has been examined in the case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Investigating Officer has also not been examined, and there is no recovery of any weapon of offence, or any incriminating article. Learned counsel further submitted that though the case rests on the oral dying declaration of the deceased, allegedly made before her parents, but this circumstance was not put to the accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., and it could not have been used against him. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that in the facts of this case, the accused appellant was entitled at least to benefits of doubt, though it is admitted that he was arrested from the village of occurrence itself. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that evidence of P.W.-3 Kaili Devi and C.W.-2 Rajendra Das, the mother and the father of the deceased, clearly show that when they entered the house they found their daughter with the bleeding injury on her head, and she informed that she was assaulted by her husband by an axe. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-1 Dr. Dileep Kumar Choudhary, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-1 Dr. Dileep Kumar Choudhary, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext. 1, which show that incised injury was found on the head of the dead body, also cutting the meninges. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has able to bring home the charge against the accused appellant 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 evidence on record, we find that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, and the prosecution case rests only on the oral dying declaration made by the deceased before her parents. Both the parents of the deceased, who have examined as P.W.-3 Kaili Devi and C.W.-2 Rajendra Das, have stated that on the date of occurrence the husband and wife were present in the house, and both the witnesses had gone out of house. When they returned back they found their daughter in the injured condition with bleeding injuries in her head, and she informed them that she was assaulted by her husband Suresh Ram by axe, who had fled away. They also stated that the accused was living with them from about 4 to 5 months prior to the date of occurrence, and there used to be quarrel between the deceased and her husband. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-1 Dr. Dileep Kumar Choudhary, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.1, which show that sharp cut injury was found on the head of the deceased. Though the meninges were also found to be torn, but it appears that there was no cut or laceration of the brain matter. In that view of the matter, the fact that the deceased was alive for some time, and she had informed her parents that she was assaulted by her husband by an axe, cannot be ruled out. Though the meninges were also found to be torn, but it appears that there was no cut or laceration of the brain matter. In that view of the matter, the fact that the deceased was alive for some time, and she had informed her parents that she was assaulted by her husband by an axe, cannot be ruled out. Though, it is a fact that in his statement recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., the question about dying declaration was not put to the accused, but learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any prejudice caused to the accused thereby, inasmuch as, even if the accused had denied this fact in his statement, there could have been no difference in the final result of the trial. In the interest of justice, we have also looked into the case-diary, as the Investigating Officer has not been examined in the case, and we find from the case-diary that the accused had been arrested from the village of occurrence itself. The witnesses had also given more or less the same statement before the I.O., and there appears to be no prejudice caused to the accused due to non-examination of the I.O. as well. In that view of the matter, the presence of the accused on the date and time of the occurrence cannot be ruled out, and the oral dying declaration of the deceased, as proved by her parents, appear to be quite trustworhy. 13. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view the that the Trial Court has rightly relied upon the evidence of P.W.-3 Kaili Devi and C.W.-2 Rajendra Das, and has convicted and sentenced the accused on the basis of their evidence, which was fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-1 Dr. Dileep Kumar Choudhary, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.1. We do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth any interference by this Court. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 19 th May, 2009 and the Order of sentence dated 20.05.2009, passed by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2006/140 of 2009, convicting and sentencing the appellant Suresh Ravidas @ Ram, for the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, affirmed. The appellant is already in custody, undergoing the sentence. 15. Before parting with this Judgment, we find that P.W.-3 Kaili Devi and C.W.-2 Rajendra Das, are the victims of crime, as they have lost their daughter due to offence committed by the accused. We find that both of them are entitled to be compensated under Victim Compensation Scheme, under Section 357-A of the Cr.P.C. We accordingly, direct the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, to take up the matter with the concerned District Legal Services Authority, so that both these victims of crime may be adequately compensated 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. 16. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.