Manoj Mahto Vs. the State of Bihar - Court Judgment

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 3.11.2012, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 596 of 2009, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, convicting the accused appellant, namely, Manoj Mahto, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code Consequent upon his conviction as mentioned hereinbefore, he has been sentenced, by order, dated 10.11.2012, to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default of payment, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, be described as hereunder:-

(i) Deceased Pinki Kumari @ Babita Kumari was wife of accused Manoj Mahto, the marriage between the two having been solemnized in the year 2001. The couple had a female child and used to reside, on rent, in the house of one Bodh Narain, at Mohalla Kamruddinganj, Police Station Laheri, Biharsharif.

(ii) On 20.1.2009, at about 7 AM, Dinesh Mahto (P.W.3), brother of the deceased Pinki Pumari, received information, on his mobile, that Pinki Kumari had been killed by her husband, namely, Manoj Mahto, in the rental house situated, at Mohalla Kamruddinganj, Police station Laheri. On receiving the information, P.W.3, accompanied by his father, Arjun Mahto (PW 5) and others came to the house, where Pinki Kumari used to live with the accused. They found Pinkis dead body lying by the side of the kitchen in a pool of blood with several injuries on her body. When the parents and brother of Pinki Kumari reached the place, where Pinkis dead body was found lying, they did not find either her husband or his relatives present there. On enquiry, Pinkis daughter (i.e. grand-daughter of P.W.5) informed PW 5 and others that her grand-father, Arjun Mahto, uncle Jitendra Mahto, and aunt Sanju had caught hold of her mother, Pinki, while her father, Manoj Mandal (i.e. present appellant) had hit her by an iron rod.

(iii) On being informed about the occurrence, police arrived at the place of occurrence and held inquest on the dead body. Before post mortem examination was conducted on the said dead body, fardbeyan (Exhibit 3) of PW 3, brother of the said deceased, was recorded by police. Treating the fardbeyan as First Information Report, Laheri Police Station Case No. 15 of 2009, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against the accused aforementioned.

(iv) During investigation, post mortem examination was conducted on the said dead body and, on completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid, under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, against the present accused, while the case was kept pending, for investigation, as against those, who had been named as accused in the First Information Report.

3. At the trial, when a charge, under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, was framed against accused Manoj Mahto, he pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. PW 1 is Sidheshwar Prasad, PW 2 is Ajay Kumar, PW 3 is Dinesh Kumar, PW 4 is Devendra Mahto, PW 5 is Arjun Mahto (Informant), PW 6 is Rakesh Ranjan (one of the Investigating Officers), who received the charge of investigation of this case on 5.4.2009 on the order of Superintendent of Police from Madan Prasad Singh, the previous Investigating officer, and PW 7 is Dr. Ramanand Prasad Singh (Medical Officer).

5. On conclusion of recording of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, statement of accused was taken down under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he pleaded innocence and completely denied his role in the occurrence. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence.

6. Having reached the conclusion that accused Manoj Mahto stood proved guilty of the offence, which he had been charged with, learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as has been mentioned above.

7. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, which has been passed against him, the accused, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal.

8. We have heard Mr. Bharat Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

9. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be borne in mind that it is not in dispute that it was PW 7 (the doctor) who had, on 20.1.2009, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Pinky Kumari and found the following ante mortem injuries:-

œExternal injuries:-

(i) Lacerated wound 3? x 2? x bone deed over right mendipular region of face.

(ii) Lacerated would 1 ½? x ½? x skin deep over chin

(iii) Lacerated wound 2 ½? x 1/2? x bone deep over right side occipital region of head.

On dissection:- there was fracture of right side mandible corresponding injury no.1. Thee was fracture of occipital bone with a big subdural haemotoma corresponding Injury No.iii. All other viscera intact and pale. Heart both chambers empty. Stomach contains-empty, Urinary bladder-Empty, Uterus-Non Gravit?.

10. In the opinion of the doctor (PW 7), the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage, which resulted from the injuries sustained by the deceased, more particularly, injury No.(iii), which the said deceased had sustained on her head. The doctor (PW 7) has also opined that the injuries, particularly, injury No. (iii), had been caused by hard and blunt substance.

11. In the cross-examination, the doctor (PW 7) has ruled out the possibility that the injuries, which the said deceased was found to have sustained, could have been caused by fall inasmuch as, according to the doctor, Pinki Kumari had sustained injuries on the frontal part of her body as well as on her back, and that both the injuries could not have been caused by mere fall.

12. Findings of the doctor and his opinion, with regard to the cause of death and the nature of weapon used, remained unshaken at the trial. This apart, we, too, do not notice anything inherently incorrect or improbable in the findings of the doctor or in his opinion with regard to the cause of death or with regard to the nature of weapon, which might have used to cause the death.

13. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that Pinki Kumari sustained injuries, which the doctor (PW 7) has deposed too, and that the shock and haemorrhage, resulting from the injuries, particularly, injury No. (iii), namely, lacerated wound 2 ½? x 1/2? x bone deep over right side occipital region of head, which became the cause of her death, the said injury having been caused by hard and blunt substance. This apart, the injuries, which Pinki Kumari, had sustained could not have been, in the light of the medical evidence on the record, accidental or suicidal.

14. The question, therefore, which confronts this Court, is as to whether the accused-appellant was the one, who had caused the injuries, which were found on Pinkis dead body and became the cause of her death.

15. Our quest for an answer to the above question brings us to the evidence of PW 5, father of the said deceased, who is informant of the case. According to his evidence, on 20.1.2009, at 7.00 AM, an information was received, on the mobile phone of his son, namely, Dinesh Kumar (PW 3), that Pinki Kumari @ Babita had been killed by Manoj Mahto in association with Arjun Mahto, Yogendra Mahto and Ranju Devi. PW 5 has deposed that after receiving the information, he, along with his son and others, went to the house of Bodh Narayan, Advocate, at Mohalla Kuamruddinganj, Police Station Laheri, Biharsharif, where accused Manoj Mahto used to live, on rent, with his wife and, on arriving there, he saw dead body of Pinki Kumari, lying by the side of kitchen, in a pool of blood. PW 5 has also deposed that he noticed that blood was oozing out of the ear of Pinki Kumari and her jaw was also broken and full of blood. It is in the evidence of PW 5 that his son-in-law and his other relatives were not found in the house.

16. What, is now, immensely important to note is that according to PW 5, his grand-daughter told him that her grand-father, Arjun Mahto, her uncle, Jitendra Mahto, and aunt, Ranju Devi, had caught hold of her mother (Pinki Kumari) and her father (i.e. the appellant herein) hit her mother (Pinki Kumari) by means of an iron rod.

17. Broadly in tune with the evidence of PW 5 is the evidence of PW 3 (Dinesh Kumar) and PW.2 (Ajay Kumar).

18. From a bare reading of the evidence, which we have depicted above, it becomes abundantly clear, as has been rightly contended on behalf of the appellant, that since Pinkis daughter had allegedly reported to PW 5 and others as to how her mother had been killed, but she (Pinkis daughter) has not been examined, at the trial, as a witness. The evidence, given by PWs. 5, 3 and others, with regard to how Pinki Kumari was put to death, is nothing, but hearsay inasmuch as none of these witnesses has personal knowledge as to how Pinki Kumari @ Babita Kumari had died.

19. If the evidence, given by the witnesses aforementioned, as to what had been reported to them by Pinkis daughter, is kept excluded from the purview of our reconsideration as hearsay, which we ought to do, there would remain no admissible direct evidence to show as to how Pinki had died.

20. There are, however, circumstantial evidence available on record. The circumstantial evidence consists of the fact that Pinki Kumari used to live with her husband (i.e. the present appellant), but soon after the occurrence, the appellant disappeared. Though the defence sought to project, at the trial, that Pinki Kumari had sustained injuries aforementioned due to fall, the suggestions, so offered, have remained as mere suggestions.

21. Above all, what we find is that in the case at hand, Pinkis daughter, who is claimed to have informed her maternal grand-father and others as to how her mother had been killed, ought to have been examined by the Investigating Officer and she also ought to have been examined by the prosecution at the trial. Even if the prosecution had failed to bring the said child as a witness to the trial, it was the bunden duty of the learned trial Court to invoke its power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and examine the said child as a witness, when her evidence was essential to the just decision of the case.

22. Situated thus, we have no doubt in holding that the said daughter of deceased Pinki ought to have been examined, as a witness, at the trial and since she has not been examined, the impugned judgment of conviction and the consequential order of sentence cannot be sustained.

23. Because of what have been discussed and pointed above, we partly allow this appeal. The judgment and order, under appeal, are hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court with direction to obtain the presence of the said daughter of deceased Pinki and examine her as a witness and, then, dispose of the case, in accordance with law, by further examining, as may be required, the accused- appellant under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since we have also noticed that the First Police Officer, who had investigated the case, namely, Madan Prasad, has not been examined, the learned trial Court shall examine the said Investigating Officer (Madan Prasad Singh) too.

24. Coupled with the above, the learned trial Court was required to take into consideration the fact that since charge was framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, the accused-appellant could not have been convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code simplicitor without clear and cogent evidence on record that Pinki Kumari had been put to death in furtherance of common intention of all the accused persons, who had allegedly been named by the said daughter of Pinki Kumari or else, the appellant has to be convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code simplicitor if the legally sustainable evidence on record so proves beyond reasonable doubt.

25. While remanding the case as directed above, we make it clear that the appellant shall be kept detained in custody and the question of his release shall depend on the outcome of the trial.

26. With the above observations and directions, this appeal shall stand disposed of.

27. Send back the Lower Court Records along with a copy of this judgment and order.

28. Before parting with this appeal, we direct that the learned trial Court shall deal with the case expeditiously and dispose of the same in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the records of the case along with the copy of this judgment and order.