Saput Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/68813
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnFeb-18-2016
AppellantSaput Sahu
RespondentState of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
cr.(jail) appeal(db) no.124 of 2005 [against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 2 nd november,2004 and 4th november,2004 respectively passed by sri harikesh chand, additional district & sessions judge, f.t.c.-ii, gumla in connection with sessions trial no.235 of 2003 ]. …..... saput sahu …. appellant versus state of jharkhand ...respondent ---- for the appellant : mr. rajesh kumar, amicus curiae for the respondents : mr. h.k.shikarwar addl. p.p. ----- present the hon’ble mr. justice d.n.upadhyay the hon'ble mr. justice ratnaker bhengra ----- by court: this criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 2nd november,2004 and 4th november,2004 respectively passed by learned additional district & sessions judge,f.t.c.-ii, gumla in connection with sessions trial no.235 of 2003 corresponding to g.r. no.293 of 2003 arising out of gumla- ghaghra p.s. case no.25 of 2003, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of indian penal code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. the case of the prosecution, as it appears from the fardbeyan of kedar sahu recorded on 15.05.2003 at 8.30 a.m. is that the informant was blessed with a son and chhathi ceremony was organized in the house of bahura sahu (father-in-law of the informant). it is disclosed that janki devi (sister of the informant) was also married in the same village. the informant with his parents, relatives and friends had attended the party and then returned to their respective houses. the informant returned home at about 12 mid night. at about 2 a.m., the informant heard some hullah from outside. when he came out, he had seen his sister and brother-in-law with lantern in their hand standing near door of the house of janki devi (sister of the informant) and his mother having injury on her neck was lying. when she was asked as to who has caused injury, she had given indication that her husband has caused injury to her. the informant and other witnesses tried to search out the appellant, but he was not present in the house. on the bed, blood stain was available and a knife stained with blood was lying on the ground. according to the fardbeyan of the informant, his father has killed his mother. on the basis of fardbeyan of kedar sahu, gumla-ghaghra p.s. case no. 25 of 2003 dated 15.05.2003 under .2. section 302 i.p.c. against the appellant was registered. the police, after due investigation, submitted charge sheet, accordingly cognizance under section 302 i.p.c. was taken and the case was committed to the court of session and registered as sessions trial no. 235 of 2003.3. charge under section 302 i.p.c. against the appellant was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. the prosecution in order to substantiate charge has examined altogether eight witnesses, including doctor and the investigating officer. learned additional sessions judge placing reliance on the evidence and documents, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 i.p.c. and sentenced him as indicated above.4. learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that no witness had seen the occurrence. the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstance is not complete leading to the guilt of appellant excluding all hypothesis of his innocence. p.ws. 1 & 2 are non-else, but the daughter and son-in-law of the deceased and they have tried to make out a case of oral dying declaration, but the injuries sustained by the deceased as it appears from the post mortem report indicate that the deceased was not in a position to speak at all and this fact finds support from the evidence of p.w.8 and fardbeyan. in the fardbeyan itself, the informant has stated that voice of deceased was not very clear prior to her death. what was the indication given by the deceased has not been explained. only because the appellant was absent from his house, he could not be held liable for the murder of his wife. the motive assigned by the prosecution has not been proved. none of the villagers, except family members have supported the prosecution case. p.ws.4 & 5, who are witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. in the circumstances, the finding of the trial court is liable to be set aside and the appellant is liable to be acquitted from the charge of murder.5. learned addl.p.p. has opposed the argument and submitted that the appellant is the husband of the deceased, informant is the son whereas p.ws. 1 & 2 are the daughter and son-in-law of the deceased. there was no reason for son, daughter and son-in-law to implicate the appellant falsely. the occurrence took place during night at about 2 a.m. the appellant and all his relatives had been to the house of bahura sahu and they had attended a party organized on the occasion of birth of son of the informant. the informant with his wife returned home at about 12 mid-night. likewise other relatives also left .3. for their respective houses late in the night. at about 2 a.m., p.w.1- janki devi, who is the daughter of the appellant, noticed knocking of the door of her house. when she opened the door and came out with her husband, she had found her mother lying having injury on her neck. when she asked, her mother replied that her father has inflicted injury. in the meantime, the informant also reached to the place. thereafter, p.ws. 1, 2 & 8 ran to the house of the deceased and found blood fallen on the bed and blood stained knife was also lying on the ground. it is submitted that it is not a case based only on the circumstantial evidence, rather oral dying declaration is also there. the prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt and the appellant has rightly been held guilty. 6 we have considered the evidence and documents available on record and also perused the impugned judgment. it is a case in which mother has been killed, father is the accused, son is the informant and daughter and son-in-law are the material witnesses. it is not expected that daughter, son and son-in-law will give false statement before the court for securing conviction of the appellant, who is father of the informant. the prosecution evidence is intact to the extent that the place of occurrence is the house of appellant occupied by him and his wife (deceased). time of occurrence is 2.00 a.m. the informant woke up after hearing noise. when he came out from his house, he had seen his sister and brother-in-law having lantern in their hand. when he reached over there, his mother was having cut injury on her neck. when he asked about injury, indication was given by the deceased that her husband had inflicted injury to her. p.w.1 is the daughter of the appellant and the deceased. the door of the house of p.ws. 1 & 2 was knocked and when they opened the door, they found the deceased lying with cut injury on her neck. when p.w.1 asked to her mother as to who has caused injury, she told that her father(husband of the deceased) has caused injury to her by means of knife. after half and hour laxmi devi died at the spot. the evidence of p.ws. 1 & 2 appears intact on the point that the deceased before her death had disclosed about the assailant and the appellant is non-else, but the father of p.w.1. the version of p.w.1 finds support from the statement of p.ws.2 & 8.7. p.w.6-dr. n.k.sinha has conducted post mortem examination on the dead-body of laxmi devi and has described the injury that front portion of the neck was cut, trachea and other vessels were damaged. before we consider the question as to whether a person can speak or not after receiving such injury, we would like to refer certain .4. facts. the facts remain that lakshmi devi after having injury caused to her in her room, ran from the place, reached to the house of her daughter situated in the same village and knocked the door, which indicates that the injuries were not sufficient to cause instantaneous death. nothing material has been brought on record to disbelieve the evidence of p.ws. 1 & 2 regarding oral dying declaration made by the deceased before them. besides the statement of p.ws. 1, 2 & 8, we find that blood spot was present on the bed of the deceased and blood stained knife was also lying there. i.o. has proved inquest report, seizure list and fardbeyan etc. learned addition district & sessions judge has discussed all the evidence and documents available on record in the impugned judgment. no question has been put to the doctor whether the deceased after receiving such injury was capable of speaking or not.8. in the facts and circumstances, we do find any merit in this appeal. accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 2nd november,2004 and 4th november,2004 passed by learned additional district & sessions judge, f.t.c.-ii, gumla in connection with sessions trial no.235 of 2003 is hereby upheld.9. this appeal stands dismissed. ( d.n.upadhyay, j.) ( ratnaker bhengra, j.) jharkhand high court ranchi18h february,2016. nafr/s.b.
Judgment:

Cr.(Jail) Appeal(DB) No.124 of 2005 [Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 2 nd November,2004 and 4th November,2004 respectively passed by Sri Harikesh Chand, Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Gumla in connection with Sessions Trial no.235 of 2003 ]. …..... Saput Sahu …. Appellant Versus State of Jharkhand ...Respondent ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Amicus Curiae For the Respondents : Mr. H.K.Shikarwar Addl. P.P. ----- PRESENT The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.N.Upadhyay The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ratnaker Bhengra ----- By Court: This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 2nd November,2004 and 4th November,2004 respectively passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,F.T.C.-II, Gumla in connection with Sessions Trial no.235 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. no.293 of 2003 arising out of Gumla- Ghaghra P.S. Case no.25 of 2003, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. The case of the prosecution, as it appears from the fardbeyan of Kedar Sahu recorded on 15.05.2003 at 8.30 A.M. is that the informant was blessed with a son and CHHATHI ceremony was organized in the house of Bahura Sahu (father-in-law of the informant). It is disclosed that Janki Devi (sister of the informant) was also married in the same village. The informant with his parents, relatives and friends had attended the party and then returned to their respective houses. The informant returned home at about 12 mid night. At about 2 A.M., the informant heard some hullah from outside. When he came out, he had seen his sister and brother-in-law with lantern in their hand standing near door of the house of Janki Devi (sister of the informant) and his mother having injury on her neck was lying. When she was asked as to who has caused injury, she had given indication that her husband has caused injury to her. The informant and other witnesses tried to search out the appellant, but he was not present in the house. On the bed, blood stain was available and a knife stained with blood was lying on the ground. According to the fardbeyan of the informant, his father has killed his mother. On the basis of fardbeyan of Kedar Sahu, Gumla-Ghaghra P.S. Case no. 25 of 2003 dated 15.05.2003 under .2. section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant was registered. The police, after due investigation, submitted charge sheet, accordingly cognizance under section 302 I.P.C. was taken and the case was committed to the court of session and registered as Sessions Trial no. 235 of 2003.

3. Charge under section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to substantiate charge has examined altogether eight witnesses, including doctor and the Investigating Officer. Learned Additional Sessions Judge placing reliance on the evidence and documents, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him as indicated above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that no witness had seen the occurrence. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstance is not complete leading to the guilt of appellant excluding all hypothesis of his innocence. P.Ws. 1 & 2 are non-else, but the daughter and son-in-law of the deceased and they have tried to make out a case of oral dying declaration, but the injuries sustained by the deceased as it appears from the post mortem report indicate that the deceased was not in a position to speak at all and this fact finds support from the evidence of P.W.8 and fardbeyan. In the fardbeyan itself, the informant has stated that voice of deceased was not very clear prior to her death. What was the indication given by the deceased has not been explained. Only because the appellant was absent from his house, he could not be held liable for the murder of his wife. The motive assigned by the prosecution has not been proved. None of the villagers, except family members have supported the prosecution case. P.Ws.4 & 5, who are witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. In the circumstances, the finding of the trial court is liable to be set aside and the appellant is liable to be acquitted from the charge of murder.

5. Learned Addl.P.P. has opposed the argument and submitted that the appellant is the husband of the deceased, informant is the son whereas P.Ws. 1 & 2 are the daughter and son-in-law of the deceased. There was no reason for son, daughter and son-in-law to implicate the appellant falsely. The occurrence took place during night at about 2 A.M. The appellant and all his relatives had been to the house of Bahura Sahu and they had attended a party organized on the occasion of birth of son of the informant. The informant with his wife returned home at about 12 mid-night. Likewise other relatives also left .3. for their respective houses late in the night. At about 2 A.M., P.W.1- Janki Devi, who is the daughter of the appellant, noticed knocking of the door of her house. When she opened the door and came out with her husband, she had found her mother lying having injury on her neck. When she asked, her mother replied that her father has inflicted injury. In the meantime, the informant also reached to the place. Thereafter, P.Ws. 1, 2 & 8 ran to the house of the deceased and found blood fallen on the bed and blood stained knife was also lying on the ground. It is submitted that it is not a case based only on the circumstantial evidence, rather oral dying declaration is also there. The prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt and the appellant has rightly been held guilty. 6 We have considered the evidence and documents available on record and also perused the impugned judgment. It is a case in which mother has been killed, father is the accused, son is the informant and daughter and son-in-law are the material witnesses. It is not expected that daughter, son and son-in-law will give false statement before the court for securing conviction of the appellant, who is father of the informant. The prosecution evidence is intact to the extent that the place of occurrence is the house of appellant occupied by him and his wife (deceased). Time of occurrence is 2.00 A.M. The informant woke up after hearing noise. When he came out from his house, he had seen his sister and brother-in-law having lantern in their hand. When he reached over there, his mother was having cut injury on her neck. When he asked about injury, indication was given by the deceased that her husband had inflicted injury to her. P.W.1 is the daughter of the appellant and the deceased. The door of the house of P.Ws. 1 & 2 was knocked and when they opened the door, they found the deceased lying with cut injury on her neck. When P.W.1 asked to her mother as to who has caused injury, she told that her father(husband of the deceased) has caused injury to her by means of knife. After half and hour Laxmi Devi died at the spot. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 appears intact on the point that the deceased before her death had disclosed about the assailant and the appellant is non-else, but the father of P.W.1. The version of P.W.1 finds support from the statement of P.Ws.2 & 8.

7. P.W.6-Dr. N.K.Sinha has conducted Post Mortem examination on the dead-body of Laxmi Devi and has described the injury that front portion of the neck was cut, trachea and other vessels were damaged. Before we consider the question as to whether a person can speak or not after receiving such injury, we would like to refer certain .4. facts. The facts remain that Lakshmi Devi after having injury caused to her in her room, ran from the place, reached to the house of her daughter situated in the same village and knocked the door, which indicates that the injuries were not sufficient to cause instantaneous death. Nothing material has been brought on record to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 regarding oral dying declaration made by the deceased before them. Besides the statement of P.Ws. 1, 2 & 8, we find that blood spot was present on the bed of the deceased and blood stained knife was also lying there. I.O. has proved inquest report, seizure list and fardbeyan etc. Learned Addition District & Sessions Judge has discussed all the evidence and documents available on record in the impugned judgment. No question has been put to the doctor whether the deceased after receiving such injury was capable of speaking or not.

8. In the facts and circumstances, we do find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 2nd November,2004 and 4th November,2004 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Gumla in connection with Sessions Trial no.235 of 2003 is hereby upheld.

9. This appeal stands dismissed. ( D.N.Upadhyay, J.) ( Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) JHARKHAND HIGH COURT RANCHI18h February,2016. NAFR/s.b.