Jharkhand High Court
Md. Shakil @ Lalu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 June, 2022
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 268 of 2015
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.02.2015,
(Sentence passed on 26.02.2015), passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava,
learned Additional Sessions Judge-2nd, F.T.C., Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No.
258 of 2010.
----------
Md. Shakil @ Lalu, S/o late Haffijul Rahman, R/o Main Road Chas, P.O. P.S.
Bokaro, District-Bokaro. .....Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ....Respondent
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Md. Shahabuddin, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
--------
C.A.V. On 5.5.2022 Pronounced on 10/06/2022
R. Mukhopadhyay,J Heard Mr. Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.
B.N. Ojha, learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 21.02.2015 (Sentence passed on 26.02.2015), passed by Shri
Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge-2nd, F.T.C.,
Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No. 258 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the
appellant has been convicted for the offences under sections 302 and 324 of the
Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for life for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code along with a
fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of three months. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under section
324 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The fardbeyan of Airun Nisha was recorded on 17.03.2010 at 12.10 P.M.,
in which she has stated that Md. Shakil @ Lalu ( appellant) had come to her
house and after having tea and snacks had stayed at her sister's house. At about
11.30 A.M., Md. Shakil had come to her house when she was grinding spices.
She had offered him a chair but he did not sit and went away. It has been alleged
that at about mid-noon, she heard the cry of alarm of her cousin sister Kuraisha
Khatoon and when she rushed to the house of Kuraisha Khatoon, she found Md.
Shakil cutting her throat with a knife. When the informant tried to catch hold of
Md. Shakil, she was attacked by him with the knife and when she started raising
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 268 of 2015
alarm, Md. Shakil threw the knife and fled away. It has also been alleged that
the informant suffered injuries on her fingers on account of the assault committed
upon her by Md. Shakil.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 23 of
2010 was instituted under sections 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code
against Md. Shakil @ Lalu. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against Md. Shakil @ Lalu and after cognizance was taken, the case
was committed to the court of sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No. 258
of 2010. The charge was framed under sections 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, to which
he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as nine
witnesses.
P.W-1-Airun Nisha is the informant of the case, who has deposed that
the incident is of 5-6 months back in mid-noon, when she was grinding spices at
her house, when the accused-Shakil had come. He was offered a seat but the
accused went away to the house of her cousin sister-Kuraisha Khatoon. She has
deposed that immediately thereafter she heard the sound of alarm from her
sister, at which she rushed to her house and saw Shakil cutting the throat of her
sister with a knife. When she tried to save her sister, the accused attacked her
with the knife, which resulted in injuries suffered by this witness in her left hand.
Due to the assault committed by Shakil upon her cousin sister, she died. When
this witness raised alarm, the police arrived and her fardbeyan was recorded.
The police had also sent her for treatment to DVC Hospital.
In cross-examination, she has stated that there are several houses in the
locality including that of Vijay Kumar and Bhagwani Vishwakarma but none had
reached the place of occurrence on hearing the cry of alarm. The distance
between the house of this witness and that of the deceased is 20 ft. The
accused-Shakil is the son in law of the deceased. She has stated that the
accused used to frequently visit the house of this witness as well as the house
of the deceased. The first person to reach the place of occurrence was the
daughter of Vishwakarma. She has also stated that the relationship between
Shakil and his mother in law (deceased) and this witness was cordial. She had
suffered an injury on her left hand in course of the assault.
P.W-2-Ram Prasad Thakur has proved his signature on the inquest
report and the seizure list of the seized knife, which have been marked as Ext-1
and 1/1 respectively.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 268 of 2015
P.W-3-Md. Kurban has proved his signature on the inquest report as well
as the seizure list and which has been marked as Ext-2 and 2/1 respectively.
P.W-4-Md.Sarfaraz has deposed that the incident is dated 17.3.2010 at
about 12. A.M. when he had gone towards the market when his younger sister
informed him over mobile that Shakil @ Lalu had committed the murder of the
maternal aunt of this witness. When he rushed back to his house, he found his
maternal aunt dead and the earth was covered in blood. A blood stained knife
was also lying besides the body. When the police came, he informed them that
his aunt has been murdered by her son in law-Shakil @ Lalu.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that since he was not present at
the place of occurrence, he had not witnessed the occurrence. He had come to
know about the incident from his sister.
P.W-5-Dr. Kisto Prasad Singh was posted as a Medical Officer in C.T.
P.S on 17.03.2010 and on that date, he had examined Airun Nisha and had
found the following injuries on her person.
(i) There was a bandage on her left hand and on opening four stiches
were found on her first finger.
(ii) The stitch was three centimeter in length and it was an incised
wound.
(iii) In the middle finger, there was a stich of 0.3 centimeter. This was
also an incised wound.
The nature of weapon used was sharp cutting. He has proved the injury
report, which has been marked as Ext-3.
P.W-6-Ali Imam has deposed that on 17.03.2010, he was working in Telo
when he was informed about the murder of his sister-Kuraisha Khatoon, at which
he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his sister. At the
place of occurrence, people were discussing that Shakil has committed the
murder.
P.W-7-Shamshul Haque has denied to have any knowledge about the
person committing the murder of his sister Kuraisha Khatoon and accordingly he
was declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W-8-Dr.Bikash Kumar was posted as a Medical Officer in Sadar
Hospital, Chas on 17.3.2010 and on that date, he had conducted postmortem
on the body of Kuraisha Khatoon and had found the following ante mortem
injuries:-
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 268 of 2015
(i) Incised wound 2 1/2" length x 1 ½" depth right side of neck.
(ii) Incised wound 1 ½" x 1" right side of the chest.
(iii) Incised wound 1 ½" length x 1" depth right side of the chest.
(iv) Two incised wound in 1 ½" length X 1" depth right side of the wound.
On dissection-
Skull-Intact, brain-NAD, Hyoid bone-intact,Trachea and Larynx-
congested, Heart-both chamber empty, Lungs-right side penetrating
wound and left side pale. Liver-penetrating wound, Kidney-pale, Spleen-
congested, Stomach and Bladder-empty. Thoracic cavity-fracture of 3rd to
5th ribs and blood clots found.
The possible cause of death was on account of knife cutting neck.
He has proved the postmortem report, which is in his handwriting and
which bears his signature and which has been marked as Ext-4.
P.W-9-Ramjee Mahto was posted as an Officer in charge of
Chadrapura P.S. on 17.03.2010. On that date at about 12.05 P.M., he
came to know that a woman has been murdered. He had registered a
Sanha and thereafter proceeded to the place of occurrence. On reaching
the place of occurrence at 12.15 P.M. he found a woman lying dead whose
neck was cut and stab injuries were also found on her body. He had
recorded the fardbeyan of Airun Nisha, prepared the inquest report as well
as the seizure list of the knife. He has proved the fardbeyan, which has
been marked as Ext-5. He has also proved the inquest report and seizure
list, which have been marked as Exts-6 and 7 respectively. He had taken
the informant to the hospital for treatment and had sent the body for
conducting autopsy. He has proved the First Information Report, which
has been marked as Ext-8. He has inspected the place of occurrence,
which is a one roof house of Kurban, in which the murder had taken place.
On the place of occurrence, large quantity of blood was found. In course
of investigation, he had examined several persons and had also obtained
the postmortem report and injury report. The knife was sealed and sent to
the Malkhana.
In cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to
who had given him the information of the murder. When he had reached
the place of occurrence, there were already 50-60 persons present.
6. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C.
in which he has denied his involvement in the offence.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 268 of 2015
7. Md. Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that
the only eye witness to the occurrence is P.W-1 but her evidence suffers from
inherent inconsistencies and thus in absence of any corroboration cannot be
relied upon. It has been submitted that there are contradictions in the fardbeyan
and the evidence of P.W-1. It has also been submitted that the prosecution has
failed to attribute any motive to the appellant for committing such offence. Md.
Shahabuddin adds that at best it can be said to be an offence under section 304
IPC.
8. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned A.P.P., has put his focus on the evidence of
P.W-1 while submitting that minor contradictions cannot negate the allegations
levelled against the appellant. He has also referred to the postmortem report,
which according to him, corroborates the manner of assault as attributed to the
appellant.
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective sides
and have also perused the Lower Court Records. The entire case of the
prosecution rests upon the evidence of P.W-1, who is the solitary eye witness to
the occurrence. P.W-1 in her fardbeyan has stated that on hearing the cry of
alarm when she rushed to the house of Kuraisha Khatoon, she had seen the
appellant cutting the throat of Kuraisha Khatoon. She tried to save Kuraisha
Khatoon, at which the appellant had attacked her also with a knife. The evidence
of the informant as P.W-1 is consistent with her fardbeyan and the specific role
played by the appellant committing the murder of Kuraisha Khatoon. The
evidence of a solitary witness cannot be discarded as such evidence has its
intrinsic value if it inspires confidence to rely on the same. The credibility of the
evidence of P.W-1 is enhanced by the fact that she is also an injured witness
though having a providential escape from the murderous assault made upon her
by the appellant. Her injury report has been proved by P.W-5 as Exrt-3. The
postmortem report of Kuraisha Khatoon also speaks of incised wounds on her
persons including on neck and as per P.W-8, there is a possibility of usage of
knife for cutting the neck. The injury suffered by Kuraisha Khatoon depicts the
indiscriminate assault committed upon her by the appellant and also
corroborates the evidence of P.W-1. The evidence of P.W-1 therefore appears
to be trustworthy and reliable and there are no material contradictions and/or
omissions and/or improvements in the case of the prosecution.
10. Md. Shahabuddin has referred to the case of Ghapoo Yadav and others
Vs. State of M.P. in appeal ( Crl.) No.229 of 2003 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while submitting that at best the appellant can be convicted
under section 304 Part I of the IPC.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 268 of 2015
11. We fail to understand as to how section 304 Part I will be applicable in the
facts and circumstances of the present case. There is nothing on record to
indicate that the assault had taken place on the heat of passion or at the spur of
moment rather it seems that the appellant had come with a premeditated notion
and being armed with a knife had committed indiscriminate assault on his mother
in law resulting in her death. As per P.W-1, the relationship between the
appellant and the deceased was cordial. Absence of any motive would also not
dilute the case of the prosecution.
12. In the case of Pallali Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in (2020) 16 SCC
401, it has been held as follows:-
"21. Where the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence
of eyewitnesses, the existence or non-existence of motive,
sufficiency or insufficiency of motive will not play such a major role
as in the case which is based on circumstantial evidence. If the
prosecution is able to prove its case or motive, it will be a
corroborative piece of evidence; but if the prosecution had not
been able to prove its case or motive or the motive suggested is
too slender, that will not be a ground to doubt the prosecution case.
When other evidence against the accused is clear and cogent as
in the present case, absence of motive or insufficiency of motive is
of no importance."
13. As noted above, the evidence collected by the prosecution including the
reliability of the evidence of P.W-1 is beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore
the absence of any motive as harped upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant would not have any consequence or importance with respect to the
present case.
14. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove come to
the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt and as a consequence to the above, this appeal fails, which
accordingly stands dismissed.
( Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)
(Rajesh Kumar, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated-10th June, 2022
Rakesh/NAFR.
