Murari Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 69 of 2005 --- Murari Kumar Mishra, son of Shri Bholanath Mishra of village Moharbani, P.O. Bhora, District Dhanbad … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sanjeev Kumar Singh @ Bullu, son of Radha Singh of village Indra Chowk, Chasnala, P.S. Sudhamdih, Disrict Dhanbad … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. P. C. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P. --- 06/10.07.2017 Heard Mr. P. C. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P., for the State. This application is directed against the judgment dated 07.01.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Sections 115, 315, 497 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that proper appreciation has not been made by the learned trial court on the allegation made by the petitioner while acquitting the opposite party no. 2 from the charges levelled against him. Submission has been advanced that at the instance of the opposite party no. 2 the termination of the pregnancy of the wife of the petitioner was done. Learned counsel further submits that his wife had specifically stated about the poison sent to her by the opposite party no. 2 to administer it to her husband. Learned senior counsel thus submits that the documentary evidence has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court before acquitting the opposite party no.

2. The allegation made in the First Information Report is that the petitioner was married with Aparna Mishra on 26.05.1997. It is alleged that the opposite party no. 2 is one of the friends of the brother of Aparna Mishra and, therefore, he had access to the house of Aparna Mishra and in due course had established illicit relationship. It is alleged that after marriage the opposite party no. 2 started blackmailing Aparna Mishra. It has further been stated that on 23.11.1997 while the informant was going towards Sudamdih Railway Station along with his wife the accused persons obstructed their path and thereafter looted Rs. 600/- for which Sudamdih P.S. Case No. 12 of 1998 was instituted. It is stated that in course of hearing in the bail petition it -2- was disclosed by the accused that he had illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner and on enquiry being made by the petitioner from his wife the entire occurrence was told to him. It is alleged that disclosure was made that the opposite party no. 2 had given poison to the wife of the petitioner concealed in packet of bangles to administer it to the petitioner. It is also alleged that the petitioner had also got some letters addressed to his wife by the opposite party no. 2 and the wife of the petitioner had also admitted to her being pregnant which was subsequently terminated with the help of he opposite party no.

2. Based on the aforesaid allegation C. P. Case No. 205 of 1998 was instituted which on being sent to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. led to institution of Jorapokhar (Sudamdih) P. S. Case No. 125 of 1998. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the court of sessions and after being transferred to the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and thereafter to Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., 7th, Dhanbad charges were framed for the offence under Sections 115, 315, 497 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Various documents were produced by the prosecution which were exhibited. The main witnesses in this case are P.W. - 2, Aparna Mishra and P.W. - 7, Murari Kumar Mishra (the petitioner). P. W. - 2 had disclosed that she was given sweet by the opposite party no. 2 and thereafter her mouth was closed by handkerchief and she was subjected to rape. She has further stated that photographs were taken and she was threatened not to disclose about the occurrence. This witness had further stated that on 28.10.1997 abortion had taken place under pressure of opposite party no.

2. She has further disclosed that the opposite party no. 2 had sent poison to administer it to her husband but she threw out the packet. P.W. - 7, is the petitioner who has also supported the prosecution case instituted by him to the fact that his wife was always subjected to sexual intimacy as earlier she was raped by the opposite party no. 2 and opposite party no. 2 was blackmailing her. P.W. - 1, Ajit Kumar Mishra, is the brother-in-law of the petitioner who has also stated on similar terms to what has been stated by P.W. - 2 and P.W. - 7. -3- P.W. - 3, Bidya Sagar Sao and P.W. - 5, Muni Lal Kumar, are independent witnesses who had stated about the Panchyati having been held and some love letters having been recovered. These witnesses have stated that the opposite party no. 2 had taken Aparna Mishra to Matri Sadan, Jharia where abortion had taken place. P.W. - 4, Saroj Mishra, is the mother of the victim who has stated that subsequently she could come to know about the rape committed by opposite party no. 2 upon her daughter. She has also stated about the poison being sent by opposite party no. 2 to kill her son-in-law. P.W. - 6, Shankar Mishra, is the father of the victim who has supported the prosecution case. P.W. - 8, Usha Rani, is the Investigating Officer of the case who had recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and having found the allegations to be true had submitted the charge-sheet. It appears that the allegation of the opposite party no. 2 to give sweets to the victim and thereafter she was subjected to rape and her photographs were also taken were never mentioned in the First Information Report nor any such statement was given under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and for the first time the victim had disclosed during trial about the said occurrence. There is no eye-witness who had seen the occurrence of rape as narrated by P.W. - 2. The love letters exchanged between the victim and the opposite party no. 2 discloses that both were in a relationship and as such the question of forcible sexual intercourse by the opposite party no. 2 with the victim is totally an unbelievable story. Further it appears that the poison alleged to have been sent by the opposite party no. 2 was concealed in a packet of bangles but the letter dated 04.09.1997 written by the opposite party no. 2 to the victim sending bangles and sari pin does not make any mention of any poison having been kept concealed to be administered to the petitioner. As regards the story of termination of pregnancy is concerned, neither any doctor nor any staff of Matri Sadan, Jharia had been examined nor cogent document has been brought on record to show that the pregnancy of the victim was terminated. The circumstances, thus show that the victim and the opposite party no. 2 were having a love affair and the entire story seems to have been cooked up to falsely implicate the opposite party no.

2. The learned trial court, therefore, has on proper appreciation of the materials available on record, acquitted the opposite party no.

2. -4- There being no reasons to conclude otherwise, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-