Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 934 (JHR)

Karu Murmu v. State of Jharkhand

2022-07-27

AMBUJ NATH, RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2016, (sentence passed on 20.05.2016) passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatshila, East Singhbhum, in connection with S.T. No. 25/2010, arising out of Musabani P.S. Case No. 56/2009, Corresponding to G.R. No. 354/2009, holding the appellant Karu Murmu guilty of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of his wife and thereby sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for six months. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 19.08.2009, wife of the appellant, namely Rani Murmu was found murdered in her matrimonial home. A dagger, which was said to be the murder weapon was found lying there. 4. After investigation, Police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge sheet against the appellant on 13.11.2009 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the case was taken by the learned A.C.J.M, Ghatshila on the same day under the aforesaid section. 5. This case was committed on 15.12.2009, as it was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. 6. In order to prove its case the prosecution has adduced both oral documentary evidence. Sawana Murmu (P.W. 1) has stated that he is not aware as to who murdered the deceased. Manjho Murmu (P.W.2), has stated that deceased Rani Murmu was murdered 4 years ago. In his cross-examination he has stated that he is not aware as to who murdered her. Manki Singh Soren (P.W. 3) is the village headman. He has stated that Rani Murmu was murdered in her matrimonial home by a dagger which was recovered from there. He has proved his signatures on the confession of the appellant which has been marked as Exhibit-1. His signatures on the fardbeyan and the inquest report has been marked as Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3, respectively. His signature on the seizure list pertaining to recovery of dagger from the house of the appellant has been marked Exhibit-4. Thakur Das Murmu (P.W.4) is another witness of the inquest. His signatures on the fardbeyan and the inquest report has been marked as Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3, respectively. His signature on the seizure list pertaining to recovery of dagger from the house of the appellant has been marked Exhibit-4. Thakur Das Murmu (P.W.4) is another witness of the inquest. He has identified his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-5. He is also seizure witness relating to recovery of dagger and bloodstained mud from the place of occurrence. His signatures on the two seizure lists have been marked as Exhibit-6 and Exhibit-7 respectively. In his cross-examination he has stated that he has no knowledge about the occurrence. Ramesh Kumar Singh( P.W.5) is a formal witness who has submitted charge sheet in this case. He has proved the following documents in evidence: fardbeyan is Exhibit-2/1, formal F.I.R. is Exhibit-8, carbon copy of inquest report is Exhibit-5/1 and seizure lists pertaining to the recovery of bloodstained mud and dagger have been marked as Exhibit-6/1 and Exhibit-7/1 respectively. In his cross-examination he has stated that he has only submitted the charge sheet. Kishun Kisku (P.W. 6), has not supported the prosecution case as such he has been declared hostile. Biram Kisku (P.W.7), is the informant of this case. He has stated that his niece Rani Murmu was married to the appellant Karu Murmu 7 years ago. On hulla he went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased. Dr. Shankar Tuddu had performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has proved the postmortem report which is Exhibit 9. 7. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. While explaining the circumstances relating to the murder of his wife in their matrimonial home and recovery of murder weapon from there, he pleaded his guilt. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence and the admission of guilt of the appellant, while explaining the evidence against him under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the learned court below held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly. 9. Sri Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. 9. Sri Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. It was further submitted that the learned court below has convicted the appellant only on the basis of his statement relating to acceptance of his guilt recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., which is not a substantive piece of evidence, and as such the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below be set aside. 10. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the state has submitted that the dead body of the deceased was recovered inside the house of the appellant and murder weapon was also recovered from there. It was further submitted that the appellant, while explaining the circumstances against him under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has admitted his guilt. Accordingly, it was submitted that this appeal be dismissed. 11. Now it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. In order to come to the aforesaid finding, it has to be ascertained:- i) Whether the deceased died a homicidal death? ii) Whether the deceased was murdered at her matrimonial home? iii) Whether the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., can be read in evidence against him? 13. As per the prosecution case, the place of occurrence is the matrimonial home of the appellant and the deceased. Biram Kisku (P.W. 7), the informant of this case has stated that on coming to know about the occurrence, he went to the place of occurrence, which was matrimonial home of the deceased. He saw the dead body of the deceased. Sawana Murmu (P.W.1) has stated that Rani Murmu was murdered 4 years ago in her matrimonial home. Manjho Murmu (P.W.2) has stated that deceased Rani Murmu was murdered in her matrimonial home. Manki Singh Soren (P.W.3) is the village headman and has stated that Rani Murmu was murdered 4 and half years ago in the house of appellant. 14. All these witnesses have corroborated each other on the point of the place of the occurrence, which happens to be the matrimonial home of the appellant and the deceased. They have not been cross examined on this point. Accordingly, we come to a finding that the place of occurrence was matrimonial home of the deceased. 15. 14. All these witnesses have corroborated each other on the point of the place of the occurrence, which happens to be the matrimonial home of the appellant and the deceased. They have not been cross examined on this point. Accordingly, we come to a finding that the place of occurrence was matrimonial home of the deceased. 15. In order to prove the homicidal death of the deceased, prosecution has adduced, both oral and documentary evidence. Prosecution witnesses have stated that the deceased was murdered at her matrimonial home. None of the witnesses have stated about the injuries found on the person of the deceased. 16. From the perusal of the inquest report which is Exhibit-5/1 it appears that injury was found on the neck and left ear of the deceased, which appeared to be caused by a dagger. 17. Dr. Shankar Tuddu (P.W.8) has performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has stated that on 19.08.2009, he was posted at Ghatshila hospital and he performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, Rani Murmu, wife of appellant, and he found following injury on her person:- (i) Sharp cutting, fairly heavy over thyroid bone(neck) 6cm x 4cm x 2cm. According to this witness, the above-mentioned injury was antemortem in nature and death was due to shock and hemorrhage caused by the above-mentioned injury. 18. From the perusal of the postmortem report Exhibit 9, it appears that the finding in the postmortem report substantiates the deposition of Dr. Shankar Tuddu as P.W.8 . 19. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence it is evident that the prosecution has been able to show that the deceased had died due to neck injury sustained by sharp cutting weapon on her neck. She died a homicidal death. 20. It is further case of the prosecution that the dagger used in commission of the murder of the deceased was found at the place of occurrence. Manki Singh Soren (P.W.3) has stated that Rani Murmu was murdered in her house, one dagger was also found at the place of occurrence. From the perusal of seizure list Exhibit 6/1, it is apparent that a dagger, which is a sharp cutting weapon was recovered from the place of occurrence. 21. Manki Singh Soren (P.W.3) has stated that Rani Murmu was murdered in her house, one dagger was also found at the place of occurrence. From the perusal of seizure list Exhibit 6/1, it is apparent that a dagger, which is a sharp cutting weapon was recovered from the place of occurrence. 21. From the aforesaid ocular and documentary evidence, it is evident that prosecution has been able to prove the recovery of a dagger, which is the murder weapon, from the place of occurrence itself. 22. Therefore, from the aforesaid facts, it can be deduced that the deceased Rani Murmu was murdered inside her matrimonial home and the murder weapon was also recovered from there. 23. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:- “15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.” 24. Prosecution has been able to establish that deceased Rani Murmu was murdered in her matrimonial home and murder weapon was also recovered from there. Now, in view of the provision of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act there was a corresponding burden on the appellant to explain as to how the deceased was murdered. 25. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He was asked to explain, the aforesaid incriminating evidence, which had been adduced by the prosecution during the trial. He admitted that his wife was murdered inside his house and a dagger was recovered from there. 25. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He was asked to explain, the aforesaid incriminating evidence, which had been adduced by the prosecution during the trial. He admitted that his wife was murdered inside his house and a dagger was recovered from there. When he was further asked, if he has to say anything else in his defence, initially he stated that he was innocent but on second thought, he stated that he is guilty. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that his confession under section 313 Cr.P.C cannot be read in evidence against him. 16. In Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam, (2007) 11 SCC 467 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 766] Hon'ble Apex Court, observed that:-conviction of the accused cannot be based merely on his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C which cannot be regarded as evidence. It is only the stand or version of the accused by way of explanation explaining the incriminating evidence/circumstances appearing against him. The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to other evidence led by the prosecution. The statements made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. must be considered not in isolation but in conjunction with the other prosecution evidence.” 26. The prosecution has discharged its burden by proving that deceased was murdered at her matrimonial home and murder weapon was also recovered from there. As per the provisions of section 106 of the Evidence Act, onus to explain as to how the deceased was murdered was upon the appellant. The appellant, while explaining the circumstances against him, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., confessed his guilt that he has murdered his wife. His confession in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is the final link in the chain of circumstances against him. 27. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant Karu Murmu has murdered his wife, Rani Murmu as alleged. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned court below. This appeal is dismissed.