Silai Karma vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2933 Jhar

                                              Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 899 of 2015
                                 1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 899 of 2015
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2015 and order of
sentence dated 25.08.2015 passed by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey,
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila.]

Silai Karma                                          ...      Appellant
                                -Versus-

The State of Jharkhand                               ...      Respondent
                             ----------

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

----------

For the Appellant         : Mr. P. K. Deomani, Advocate
For the State             : Ms. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
                                ---------
C.A.V. On 30.06.2022                      Pronounced On:01.08.2022

Heard Mr. P. K. Deomani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2015 (sentence passed on 25.08.2015) passed by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 104 of 2011, arising out of Jadugora P.S. Case No.26 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No.247 of 2010, whereby and wherein, the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila held the appellant, Silai Karma, guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing murder of the deceased Bukai Hansda and thereby, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of six months.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Maki Hansda, alleging therein that on 06.06.2010 at about 07:30 A.M., her daughter Durgi Hansda told her that the appellant Silai Karma had murdered her husband, namely, Bukai Hansda, in the verandah of her school. She rushed to the place of occurrence and saw Silai Karma standing there with a blood stained axe. Dead body of her husband was lying on the ground, she saw injuries on his neck and jaw. Silai Karma told her that he had murdered her husband.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 899 of 2015

4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance, Sri G. K. Roy, learned A.C.J.M., Ghatsila committed the case to the Court of Sessions, as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

5. Charge was framed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The content of the charge was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.

7. Durgi Hansda (P.W.1), is the daughter of the informant. She has supported the prosecution case.

Birsai Hansda (P.W.2), has proved his signature on the arrest memo, which is Ext.-1. He has also proved in signature on the seizure list relating to recovery of axe which is Ext.-2. He has further proved his signature on the inquest report which is Ext.-3. In his cross-examinations, he has stated that he cannot say as to what weapon was used in committing the murder of the deceased.

Somai Hansda (P.W.3), is the hearsay witness, he has proved the seizure list relating to recovery of the axe, purpotedly said to be murder weapon, which has been marked as Ext.-2/1. In his cross-examination he has stated that he is not an eye witness to the occurrence.

Makilal Bari (P.W.4), is also not an eye witness to the occurrence. Sukram Karma ( P.W.5 ), has stated that occurrence took place in the verandah of the school, in his cross-examination, he has stated that he is not an eye witness to the occurrence.

Kandey Hansda (P.W.6), has stated that he went to the place of occurrence at about 08:00 A.M., several persons had gathered there.

Maki Hansda (P.W.7), is the informant herself, she has supported her case as alleged in the fardbeyan.

Manoj Kumar Gupta (P.W.8), is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan, which is Ext.-4. He has also proved the formal F.I.R., and the inquest report, which are Ext.-5 and Ext.-3/2 respectively. He has further proved the seizure lists relating to recovery of axe and blood Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 899 of 2015

stained mud which are Ext.-2/2 and Ext.7 respectively. At para-3, he has given description of the place of occurrence which is verandah of New Primary School. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not sent blood stained murder weapon to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination.

Dr. Ramchander Soren (P.W.-9) has proved the postmortem report, which is Ext.-8, he has stated that Dr. Sudipto Kumar Sinha had performed postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was not present at the time of postmortem examination and he had not seen the dead body.

8. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary available on record, learned court below has held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

9. Mr. P. K. Deomani, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The case of the prosecution is based on extra judicial confession of the appellant before the informant and recovery of murder weapon at his instance. According to Mr. Deomani, the place where the extrajudicial confession of the appellant is said to have been made has not been established . He has also submitted that the axe which is said to be murder weapon was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. On these grounds, it was prayed that the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below be set aside.

10. Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State has submitted that witnesses have stated that the appellant was present with blood stained axe beside the dead body of the deceased, just after the occurrence. She has also submitted that the appellant has confessed before the witnesses that he had murdered the deceased. The murder weapon was also recovered from his house at his instance. On these grounds, it was prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

11. Now, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.

12. There is no eye witness to the occurrence.

In order to prove its case, against the appellant, prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances against him:-

(i) his presence at the place of occurrence, just after the occurrence.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 899 of 2015

(ii) his extra judicial confession before the informant.

(iii) recovery of blood stained axe from his house, at his instance.

13. On the point of homicidal death of the deceased, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.

Maki Hansda (P.W.-7) has stated that, her husband was lying dead in the verandah of the school. There were injuries on his cheek and neck. Blood was oozing from his injuries.

From perusal of the inquest report (Ext.-3/2), it transpires that the investigating officer had found cut injuries on the left jaw and neck of the deceased.

Dr. Ramchander Soren (P.W.-9) has stated that, following antemortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased:-

(i) Deep sharp injury over left mandibular region 8 cm x4 cm x2 cm.

(ii) Deep sharp injury over back of neck 6 cm x 4 cm x1.5 cm.

(iii) Abrasions over both knee joint 3 cm x 1.5 cm.

According to him, death was caused due to the aforesaid injuries caused by hard and sharp substance. Time of death was within 24 to 36 hours. Postmortem report (Ext-8) substantiates the oral testimony of Dr. Ramchander Soren (P.W.-9).

From the aforsaid oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that deceased died due to sharp cutting injuries on his neck. Accordingly prosecution has been able to establish that deceased Bukai Hansda died a homicidal death.

14. On the point of the place, where the appellant is said to have made his extra judicial confession before the informant, prosecution has adduced oral evidence.

According to the informant Maki Hansda (P.W.-7), at about 06:30 A.M., when she reached the place of occurrence, appellant confessed before her that he has murdered her husband. As per the prosecution case, the place of occurrence is the verandah of new primary school at village Janegoda. According to the informant Maki Hansda (P.W.-7), the place of occurrence is at a distance of 300 yards from her house. Birsai Hansda (P.W.-2) has stated that occurrence took place two years ago. On coming to know about the occurrence, he went to the house of the deceased Bukai Hansda between 7 to 8 A.M., and he saw the appellant Silai Karma standing there with an axe. He told the informant that he had murdered her husband.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 899 of 2015

There is vital contradiction between the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses, on the point of place where extra judicial confession was made by the appellant. Whether it was made at the place of occurrence or in the house of the informant. According to her own statement, her house was at a distance of 300 yards from the place of occurrence.

15. It is case of the prosecution that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence, just after the occurrence with a blood stained axe.

Both, Durgi Hansda (P.W.-1) and Maki Hansda (P.W.-7) have stated that when they reached the place of occurrence, they saw the appellant present there. Durgi Hansda (P.W.-1) has stated that she reached the place of occurrence at 06:00 A.M. Maki Hansda (P.W.-7) reached the place of occurrence at about 06:30 A.M. From their statements, it is evident that from 6:00 A.M. To 6:30 A.M. appellant remained at the place of occurrence after committing the murder of the deceased.

Durgi Hansda (P.W.-1) has stated that while on the way to her school villagers informed her about the occurrence. She was not the first person to see the dead body of her father. Before she reached at the place of occurrence, other villagers must have reached there. In her cross- examination, she has stated that there was nobody at the place of occurrence apart from the appellant. Identity of the villagers who had reached the place of occurrence before this witness has not been revealed. Their statement that they had seen the appellant at the place of occurrence with a blood stained axe would have been a very strong circumstance against the appellant.

As per the statements of Durgi Hansda (P.W.-1) and Maki Hansda (P.W.-7) they saw the dead body between 6:00 A.M. To 6:30 A.M. The appellant was still present at the place of occurrence, during the entire period. Dr. Ramchander Soren (P.W.-9) has stated that time of death was within 24 to 36 hours. As per the prosecution case time of occurrence is 6 A.M. on 06.06.2010. As per the postmortem report, autopsy of the deceased was performed on the same day at 2:30 P.M. Considering this fact, the time of the death of the deceased can be fixed to be at 2:30 A.M. or before in the night of 05/06.06.2010. So as per the prosecution case after committing murder of deceased, the appellant continued to remain at the place of occurrence all this time, some where from 2:30 A.M. To 6:30 A.M. As per the prosecution, he left no stones unturned to announce his guilt. This chain of circumstance against the appellant does not appear to be plausible. His Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 899 of 2015

natural conduct would have been to flee from the place of occurrence at the earliest.

16. It is further case of the prosecution that blood stained axe purportedly said to be the murder weapon was recovered from the house of the appellant.

Somai Hansda (P.W.-3) has stated that axe was recovered by the police and he had signed the seizure list as a witness.

Makilal Bari (P.W.-4) has also stated that police recovered an axe at the instance of the appellant.

Kandey Hansda (P.W.-6) has stated that police recovered an axe from the house of the appellant.

Maki Hansda (P.W.-7) has stated that the police recovered an axe from the house of the appellant.

Manoj Kumar Gupta (P.W.-8), is the Investigating Officer of this case has stated that at the instance of the appellant blood stained axe was recovered from his house. He has proved the seizure list, which is Ext.-2/2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not sent blood stained recovered axe to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination.

From perusal of the seizure list relating to recovery of the axe from the house of the appellant, it appears that the said axe was recovered from his house kept in sack.

17. Admittedly, the axe so recovered from the house of the appellant was not sent for forensic examination. Axe is a tool which is found in every village household. The recovery of axe from the house of the appellant is in no way incriminating and points to his guilt. Had the axe being sent for chemical examination and the report of chemical examination suggested that blood on the axe was human blood and it matched with the blood of the deceased, the conclusion would have been otherwise.

Accordingly, we come to a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence, just after the occurrence. The fact that appellant has made extrajudicial confession and the murder weapon was recovered at his instance have also not been proved.

18. Having regard to the above facts and reason stated therewith, it can be deduced that the chain of circumstances against the appellant is not complete so as to conclude that the appellant has committed the murder of the deceased Bukai Hansda.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 899 of 2015

This appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned court below is set aside.

The appellant who is in custody shall be released forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.

Dated:-01.08.2022 Rohit/ NAFR