1 Cr. (Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No. 1525 of 2004 (Against the judgment of conviction dated 29.05.2004 and order of sentence dated 31.05.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 46 of 2003.) ----- Vijay Singh Bodra -- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand -- Respondent ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, A.C. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. ----- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK By Court :- The appellant was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of his wife Basmati Bodra. The Trial Court having found the appellant guilty for the charge convicted him for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated 29.05.2004 and accordingly sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- with default clause vide its order dated 31.05.2004 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 46 of 2003.
2. The case of the prosecution as has been projected in the fardbeyan (Ext.3) is that on 20.11.2002 when the informant, Badule Bodra,P.W.4, came home in the evening he found his mother Basmati Bodra (deceased) locked in the room. Informant's brother Vijay Bodra, P.W.5, told him that his mother had gone to the farm of Chokra Bodra for cleaning it. When she returned home at about 6 p.m. she was assaulted by the appellant, the step father of the informant-P.W.4 and P.W.5. The appellant after assaulting his wife took her to a room which the appellant got it bolted from inside. Both the informant- Badule Bodra,P.W.4 and his brother Vijay Bodra,P.W.5 slept in the night outside of the room in a verandah. In the midnight, the 2 informant-P.W.4 and his brother P.W.5 woke up when they heard their mother asking for water. When the appellant refused to give water, the deceased Basmati Bodra asked Vijay Bodra-P.W.5, her son, to give water. But he could not give water as the door of the room was closed. In the early morning of the next day i.e. on 21.11.2002, when the appellant came out of the room he told both of them P.Ws. 4 and 5 that their mother has died. On the same day at about 9 am when maternal uncle and aunt of their mother came over there, they told about the occurrence to them who after getting knowledge of the said fact became quite angry as they had not told them about it earlier. On that night, the informant- Badule Bodra,P.W.4 and his brother Vijay Bodra,P.W.5, slept in the house of Juli Hansda. In the next morning, when village Munda came there they told about the occurrence to him, who informed to the police station.
3. On getting such information, when Shiv Shankar Rajak-P.W.6, posted as S.I. at Pandrasali outpost came to the village on 22.11.2002 at about 4 p.m., he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant-Badule Bodra,P.W.4, wherein he narrated about incident as has been stated above.
4. On the basis of said fardbeyan a case was registered and a formal FIR was drawn. The said Shiv Shankar Rajak-P.W.6, took over the investigation of the case during which he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext.4). Thereupon, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Surendra Lov,P.W.8, who upon holding autopsy on the dead body did find following injuries:- i. Bleeding from vaginal canal. ii. Abrasion right lower chest upto navel area 6”x 4”. iii. Abrasion 1”x1” left side of naval area anterior upper abdomen. On internal examination:- Ribs of both sides below sixth ribs were found fractured. 3 Both lungs were found lacerated. Blood in chest cavity. Abdomen contain blood. Liver was found ruptured. Lacerated vaginal canal 1cm x 1 cm x ¼ cm. The doctor issued postmortem examination report (Ext.
5) with an opinion that the death was caused on account of aforesaid injuries.
5. Meanwhile, the I.O recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of investigation, when the charge sheet was submitted the Court took cognizance of the offence. In due course, when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial during which, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 8 witnesses. Of them, P.W.5-Vijay Bodra is the son of the deceased, who did testify that when his step father, Vijay Singh Bodra (appellant) came home he assaulted his wife (deceased) with fist and leg and then took inside of a room, which the appellant bolted from inside. The appellant also assaulted the deceased inside the room. After some time her mother asked for water but he could not give her water as the door was closed which was never opened by the appellant. In the early morning, it was informed by the appellant that his mother was died. P.W.4-Badule Bodra, the informant has testified that he came to know from his brother,P.W.5, that his mother has been assaulted by his father. He also slept along with P.W.5 outside of the room in a verandah. This witness has also testified that his mother was asking water in the night but they could not provide her as the door of the room was closed. P.W.1-Chokra Bodra, P.W.2- Pendry have turned hostile whereas P.W.3-Ram Singh Kandeyan, village Munda, is a hearsay witness.
6. Upon closure of the prosecution case, when the appellant was questioned under section 313 of Cr.P.C. over the incriminating evidence appearing against him, he simply denied. Thereupon, the 4 trial court having placed its implicit reliance on the testimonies of the P.Ws.4 and 5 did find the appellant guilty and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge.
7. Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, appointed as Amicus Curiae, submits that admittedly there has been much delay in lodgment of the case as the occurrence, as per the case of the prosecution, occurred in the night of 20.11.2002 whereas the case has been lodged at about 4 p.m. on 22.11.2002 for which no sufficient reason has been given by the prosecution and thereby, the case of the prosecution becomes quite suspicious. In this regard, it was further submitted that it is the case of the prosecution itself that in the early morning of 21.11.2002 P.Ws. 4 and 5 came to know from the appellant that their mother has died but none of these witnesses took any effort to inform about the occurrence either to the village Munda or to anybody and thereby, the conduct of those two witnesses creates a grave doubt over the prosecution case. In such event, the Trial Court should not have relied on the testimonies of those two witnesses but the Trial Court ignoring the aforesaid important aspect of the matter relating to delay in lodging the case and also the conduct of the witnesses put reliance on the testimonies of P.Ws. 4 and 5 and thereby committed illegality in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is fit to be set aside.
8. As against this, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it is true that some delay has occurred in lodging the FIR but that itself cannot be a ground to cast suspicion over the prosecution case when both the witnesses P.Ws. 4 and 5 are consistent on the point that the deceased on being assaulted by the appellant was taken inside the room by the appellant where he again 5 assaulted the deceased who had even asked for water but it was not given by the appellant nor the appellant did allow two witnesses to give water to their mother and in the next morning the deceased was found dead on account of injuries caused by the appellant and thereby the Trial Court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which never warrants to be interfered with.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, we do find that the case of the prosecution ,as has been testified by P.W.5-Vijay Bodra, who had seen the appellant assaulting his mother in the evening of 20.11.2002 when the appellant came home after fishing, is that, the appellant after assaulting his wife took her inside a room and got it bolted. He did not allow him to enter into the room and there the appellant again assaulted the deceased. After some time, his mother (deceased) asked for water but it was not provided by the appellant nor the appellant did allow P.Ws. 4 or 5 to give water to their mother. In the next morning, when the appellant came out of the room he told P.Ws. 4 and 5 that their mother has died. On the next morning i.e. on 21.11.2002 neither the P.W.5 nor P.W.4 did inform about it to the police. On the next day i.e. on 22.11.2002 P.W. 5 informed about the occurrence to village Munda, P.W.3, who in turn informed to the police and then when P.W.6 came to the house of the appellant, he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant-P.W.4-Baduley Bodra. Thus, it is apparent that the case could be lodged only on 22.11.2002 at about 4 p.m. whereas the P.Ws. 4 and 5 had come to know about the death of their mother in the early morning of 21.11.2002 but the fact remains that both P.Ws. 4 and 5 have testified that the appellant got his wife (deceased) closed inside the room and did assault, on account of which she died. 6 The dead body, as per the inquest report has been recovered from the room of the appellant. Thus it is apparent that whatever happened, it had happened inside the room in which the deceased, the appellant and the minor child of the appellant were there. In such event, burden was there upon the appellant in terms of provisions contained under section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to how did the deceased receive injuries. But the appellant has utterly failed to explain in his statement made under section 313 of Cr.P.C. In that event, when the prosecution has been able to establish that appellant after assaulting his wife has taken her inside the room and in the next morning she was found dead. It could be none than the appellant, in absence of any explanation given by the appellant, who committed murder of his wife.
10. Under the circumstances, the trial court has rightly found the appellant guilty for committing murder of his wife and was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, which is, hereby, affirmed.
11. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. (R.R. Prasad, J.) (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 27th October, 2015 MM/Saket /NAFR