Pankaj Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2546 Jhar

                                                  Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 240 of 2019
                                 1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 240 of 2019
(Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
12.09.2018 passed by Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 2011)

Pankaj Sahu                                             ...   Appellant
                                -Versus-

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

----------

For the Appellant         : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate
For the State             : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
                                ---------
Dated : 11.07.2022

Heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2018 passed by Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Seraikella in connection with S.T. No. 77 of 2011, arising out of Adityapur (R.I.T) P.S. Case No.283 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 796 of 2010, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III held the appellant, Pankaj Sahu, guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of six months for the offence under section 302 of Indian penal Code. Learned Court below further sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of seven years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of six months for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.10.2010 at about 1:00 P.M, the appellant, Pankaj Sahu confessed before the informant Ram Briksha Singh that he has murdered his mother and has buried her outside his house. Ram Briksha Singh, who is the brother-in-

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 240 of 2019

law of the appellant reported the matter to the police. It is further case of the prosecution that on pointing out of the appellant, the dead body of the deceased, Sneh Lata was recovered. One Katari and Axe said to be the murder weapons were recovered from his house.

4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Cognizance of the case was taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella on 04.01.2011, under sections 302/201 of indian penal Code.

6. This case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, as it was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Court.

7. Charge was framed against the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code on 11.08.2011. The same was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

Ram Briksha Singh P.W.1 and Lalita Devi P.W.5 are the witnesses before whom the appellant has confessed his guilt. Ram Briksha Singh, P.W.1 is the informant of this case. Lalita Devi, P.W.5 is sister of the appellant. Both have stated that on 2/10/2010 at about 3 P.M., appellant had come to their house and confessed that he had murdered his mother. Appellant told them that his mother used to nag him for sitting idle and doing nothing, as such, he has killed her. He tried to escape from there. He was apprehended and handed over to the police. He confessed before the police that he has buried his mother in the courtyard of his house situated near Banta Nagar water tank.

Ram Briksha Singh P.W.1 has proved his signature on his fardbeyan, which is Exhibit -1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is not an eyewitness of the occurrence.

Lalita Devi, P.W.5 in her cross-examination has stated that the appellant was 13/14 years younger to him. Her mother was aged Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 240 of 2019

between 60/65 years. She has denied the suggestion that she has falsely implicated the appellant in this case.

Ramanuj Singh P.W.2, Arvind Kumar Singh P.W.3, Ramashish Singh P.W.4, and Pappu Kumar Singh P.W.6 have stated that on 02.10.2010, at about 5 P.M., on seeing a crowd outside the house of the appellant, they went there. Appellant was present there in police custody. On the pointing out by the appellant, the police exhumed the dead body of his mother which was buried in the courtyard of his house. They have further stated that on further search, police recovered a blood stained katari and an axe.

Ramanuj Singh, P.W.2, has proved his signature on the inquest report, which is Exhibit-1/1. He has also proved his signature on the seizure list, which is Exhibit-1/2. In his cross examination, he has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence dead body was already exhumed and was lying outside.

Arvind Kumar Singh, P.W.3 has proved his signature on the inquest report, which is Exhibit-1/3. He has further proved his signature on the seizure list, which is Exhibit-1/4. In his cross-examination, he has stated that blood on the axe had dried and coagulated.

Ramashish Singh P.W.4, has stated that on coming to know that the appellant has murdered his mother, he went to the house of the informant. Police was informed. Appellant was handed over to the police. On his pointing out, dead body of his mother which was buried in his courtyard was recovered. He saw injuries on the head, neck and stomach of the deceased. Police has also recovered bloodstained axe and katari from his house, on his pointing out. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the dead body of the deceased was exhumed in his presence. He had gone to the house of the appellant with the police. He has denied the suggestion that the deceased died because she fell in a pit.

Pappu Kumar Singh P.W.6, has stated that Pankaj has confessed before him that he has murdered his mother. He has murdered the deceased as she nagged him for sitting idle and doing nothing. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there was a pit in the house of the Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 240 of 2019

appellant.

Laxman Chandra Choudhary P.W.7 is the hearsay witness. In his cross-examination, he has denied that the deceased died due to fall in a pit.

9. Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary P.W.8 has performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has proved the postmortem report, which has been marked Exhibit-2.

10. Anand Kumar Mishra, P.W.9 is the formal witness. He has proved the fardbeyan, which is Exhibit-3. He has proved the inquest report, which is Exhibit-4. He has also proved the formal F.I.R, which is Exhibit-5.

11. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication.

12. On the basis of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned court below held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

13. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. It was further submitted that the learned court below has found him guilty on the basis of his extra judicial confession, which is a very weak type of evidence. It was also submitted that non-examination of Investigating Officer has greatly prejudiced the merit of the case of the appellant. On these grounds, it was prayed that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below be set aside.

14. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned A.P.P has submitted that the appellant had made extra judicial confession before several witnesses and on his confession, dead body of the deceased alongwith an axe and katari used in the commission of the offence were recovered from his house. It was further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated each other on material particulars and the learned Court below has rightly held the appellant guilty.

15. Now it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to bring home charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 240 of 2019

doubts.

16. In order to come to the aforesaid findings, following facts need to be ascertained:-

(i) Whether the deceased died a homicidal death?

(ii)Whether the extra judicial confession of the appellant before the witnesses can be relied upon?

(iii)Whether the extra judicial confession of the appellant has been corroborated by the material particulars of this case?

(iv)If so, whether the appellant is guilty of murdering his mother ?

(v) Whether non-examination of the Investigating Officer has prejudiced the case of the appellant or not?

17. Case of the prosecution is that the deceased Sneh Lata died a homicidal death. From the trend of cross-examination, it transpires that case of the defence is that she died by falling in a pit.

Ramanuj Singh P.W.2, has stated that he had seen the dead body of the deceased. He saw injuries on her breast and neck. Arvind Kumar Singh P.W.3, has stated that he saw injuries on the head and neck of the deceased. Ramashish Singh P.W.4 has stated that he saw the dead body of the deceased and saw injuries on her head and neck. They have corroborated each other on this point.

18. From the perusal of the inquest report (Exhibit-4), it transpires that the Investigating Officer had found injuries on her both cheek, neck and head. According to the inquest report, all the injuries were caused by a sharp cutting weapon.

19. As per the ocular evidence of the doctor, Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary P.W.8, he found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:-

Sharp cut with lacerated wound

(i) Oblique over left forehead 5CM x 5 CM x cranial cavity with sharp cut fracture underlying frontal scalp bone and lacertated underlying brain and cut meninges.

(ii) Horizontal along lower face left side 5 Cm x 4 Cm x oral cavity with sharp cut fracture underlying lower jaw.

(iii) Along left upper face oblique 7 cm x 2 cm x muscle and bone deep with fracture underlying facial bone.

(iv) Horizontal along left upper neck 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 240 of 2019

(v) Over front upper chest in center 8 cm x 7 cm x upto lower cervical and adjoining upper thorasic vertebrae with severence of trachea and food pipe in its line and sharp cut fracture of underlying vertebrae.

(vi) Oblique along right lower face and adjoining upper neck 13 cm x 4 cm x soft tissue and cervical vertebrae and severance of soft tissues and cervical vertebrae in its line.

(vii) 4 cm x 1/2 cm x cervical vertebrae with severance of soft tissue in its line and fracture of cervical vertebrae.

(viii) 4 cm x 1 cm x soft tissues and bone with severance of underlying soft tissues and sharp cut fracture of cervical vertebrae over right lower neck.

(ix) 8 cm x 2 cm x cranial cavity with sharp cut fracture of underlying scalp bone and laceration and cut of underlying brain and membrane over left parietal scalp.

(x) 3 cm x 1.5 cm x cranial cavity over left parietal scalp bone with sharp cut of underlying bone and cut and laceration on brain and meninges. Brain contused and lacerated.

Internal Injuries

Soft tissues under the external injuries contused.

According to this witness, the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon and hard and blunt edge where the injuris are laceration. Death was caused due to the aforesaid injuries.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that the aforesaid injuries cannot be caused by falling on a stone.

From the perusal of the postmortem report (Exhibit-2), It is apparent that the injuries found on the person of the deceaed and cause of her death as stated in the postmortem report is in conformity with the injuries and her cause of death as stated by Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary as P.W.8.

The ocular account of the prosecution witnesses on this point is corroborated by the findings in the inquest report and medical evidence.

20. Deceased Sneh Lata sustained injuries on several parts of her body which according to Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Choudhury, P.W.8 was caused by sharp cutting weapon. According to him, injuries sustained by the deceased cannot be caused by falling on a stone or in a pit.

Accordingly, we come to a finding that the deceased Sneh Lata died a homicidal death.

21. It is case of the prosecution that the appellant has made extra Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 240 of 2019

judicial confession before independent witnesses, confessing that he has murdered his mother and buried her.

22. Ram Briksha Singh P.W.1 is the brother-in-law of the appellant and Lalita Devi P.W.5 is his sister. Both have stated that the appellant had made extra judicial confession before them that he had murdered his mother. They have not been cross-examined on this point. Defence has only suggested that they have falsely implicated the appellant in this case.

23. Pappu Kumar Singh, P.W.6 has stated that the appellant had confessed before him that he had murdered his mother. In his cross- examination, he has stated that the appellant told him that he murdered his mother because she used to pester him for sitting idle and doing nothing.

All the aforesaid three witnesses have corroborated each other on the point that the appellant had made extra judicial confession before them that he had murdered his mother. There is no incongruity in their statements to doubt their verasity.

24. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and it cannot be relied upon.

25. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahadevan and Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 403 has laid down the following principles in respect of evidentiary value and reliablilty of such confession, which is summarised as below :

(i) The extra judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.

(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

(iii) It should inspire confidence.

(iv) An extra judicial confession attains greater credibilty and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

(v) For an extra judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

(vi)Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 240 of 2019

26. Appellant had made extra judicial confession before his sister and brother-in-law. He has also made his confession before an independent witness. He has stated in very clear terms that he murdered his mother because she used to nag him for sitting idle and doing nothing. Police was informed after the appellant had confessed before the independent witnesses. Accordingly, the extra judicial confession of the appellant before these witnesses can be said to be voluntary and truthful and inspires confidence.It does not suffer from any material discrepancies and material improbabilities.

27. It is further case of the prosecution that after the appellant was arrested and on his pointing out, dead body of the deceased was recovered by the police which was buried in his courtyard. The murder weapons which are 'Axe' and 'Katari' were also recovered.

On this point, Ram Briksha Singh P.W.1 has stated that the police took the appellant to his house and on his pointing out, dead body of the deceased was recovered. The murder weapons which are 'axe' and 'katari' were also recovered from there. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was standing outside the house and he cannot say as to who had entered inside the house.

Ramanuj Singh P.W.2, Arbind Kumar Singh P.W.3 and Ramashish Singh P.W.4 all have stated that on coming to know about the occurrence, they went to the house of the appellant and on his pointing out, dead body of his mother was recovered. There were marks of injuries on the person of the deceased. They have further stated that on search, murder weapons i.e. an 'Axe' and 'Katari' were recovered from the house of the appellant. These witnesses have not been cross-examined on the point of recovery of the dead body of the deceased and murder weapons at his instance.

28. Investigating Officer has not been examined during trial, as such, seizure list relating to recovery of the murder weapons has not been exhibited. However, the seizure witnesses have identified their signatures in the seizure list which are Exhibit-1 series. The seizure witnesses have been unambiguous in their averment regarding the recovery of murder weapons from the house of the appellant at his Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 240 of 2019

instance. They have also corroborated each other on this point.

Accordingly, we come to the finding that the prosecution has been able to show that the dead body of the deceased and the murder weapons were recovered on the pointing out of the appellant.

29. The learned court below has held the appellant guilty not only on the basis of his extra judicial confession but also on the basis of the fact that his confession before the police has led to recovery of dead body of the deceased which was buried in his courtyard along with the recovery of murder weapons from his house. Accordingly, the extra judicial confession of the appellant attains greater credibility as it is corroborated by the recovery of the dead body of the deceased and murder weapons.

30. Defence has also tried to make out a case that non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused prejudice to its case. None of the prosecution witnesses have been suggested that they have made any statement before the court which was not narrated by them in their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Witnesses have also been specific on the point of place of occurrence, which was the house of the appellant from where dead body of the deceased and murder weapons were recovered. In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that non examination of the Investigating Officer in this case has not caused any prejudice to the case of the defence.

31. Accordingly, we come to a finding that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant that he had murdered his mother and in order to screen himself from legal punishment, buried her dead body and hid the murder weapons inside his house.

32. The learned court below has rightly held the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not require any interference.

33. This appeal is accordingly, dismissed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) BS/-