Jharkhand High Court
Rekha Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1281 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
26.07.2004/28.07.2004, respectively passed by the learned 5th
Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.-II, Godda, in Sessions Case No.
152 of 2002.)
---------
Rekha Devi ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Adv.
Ms. Sharda Kumari, Amicus
For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, APP
---------
07/Dated: 7th August, 2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 26.07.2004/28.07.2004,
respectively passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions
Judge, F.T.C. No.-II, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 152 of
2002; whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence
punishable under section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of
fine, further ordered to undergo S.I. for a period of one month.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the informant alleged
that her husband at about 7-8 A.M. on 05.11.2001 left his
house to meet wife of his elder brother for the purpose of
getting money for repair of vehicle, from where he returned in
much anger, was uttering against 'Bhabhi'. After sometime,
she saw her husband vomiting. His condition further
deteriorated upon which Satya mandal and Kalawati Devi
went to Hospital. During the course of treatment, he died.
4. Learned Amicus and counsel for the appellant made
following submissions;
(i). There is a delay of about 4 months in lodging the F.I.R.
and no explanation has been given by the informant.
(ii) The informant herself admitted in her cross-
examination that if some money would have been given to
her, she would not have lodged the present case which clearly
goes to shows that the instant case was registered because of
demand which was made by the informant and the same was
not fulfilled, and therefore the appellant has been falsely
implicated in this case.
(iii) P.W.1 to 6 has been declared hostile and even by going
through the deposition of P.W. 7 to 11 as well as P.W.12, the
same does not corroborated with substantial evidence that for
what purpose he has been induced to commit suicide.
(iv) The deposition of the doctor though really supports the
unnatural death but looking to the facts of the case that when
the victim returned from the paddy field after using
pesticides, has developed the problem of vomiting; thus, it can
be inferred that the said pesticides might be the reason for his
death, inasmuch as, no reason has been shown by the
prosecution as to why the victim will commit suicide.
5. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and
submits that the learned trial court has not committed any
error in convicting the appellant. However, she fairly submits
that as per record, there is no any criminal antecedent of the
appellant.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the impugned judgment and the documents
available on LCR, it seems that the allegation leveled against
appellant look as if the same is false and frivolous, inasmuch
as, the occurrence took place on 5.11.2001 at about 10 AM
but the informant chose to wait for the period for about 4
months and finally on 03.03.2002 lodged the FIR.
It further transpires that the informant with an ulterior
motive falsely implicated the appellant as it has come into
evidence i.e., from para-2 of the cross examination of the
informant-PW-10, that in lieu of the Tata Maxi, if some money
would have been given to her she would not have lodged the
present case which clearly demonstrates that the instant case
was registered because of the demand which was made by the
informant and when the same was not fulfilled, this false case
has been registered.
7. There are also other discrepancies in the deposition of
P.W-10 as in her examination she has stated that she lodged
the FIR just the day after the incident but the present FIR was
lodged on 03.03.2001 i.e., after the delay of about 4 months
from the incident; this statement itself falsifies the whole case
of prosecution.
8. No other witness has fully supported the case of the
prosecution. As a matter of fact, the sole basis of the
fardbayan made by the informant is that the vehicle (Tata
Maxi) which was owned by the husband of the informant was
in bad condition so for repairing the same she went to the
house of the appellant to demand some money for repairing
the same as all the income from the said Tata Maxi was given
to the appellant by the husband of the informant. As
indicated herein above that the informant herself admitted
that had the appellant paid the amount to the informant, she
would not have lodged the FIR.
9. The doctor has stated the cause of death was from C-R
failure due to poisoning, but to support the same viscera was
not preserved and the report was not brought on record. Even
otherwise, the deposition of the doctor though really supports
the unnatural death but looking to the facts of the case that
when the victim returned from the paddy field after using
pesticides, has developed the problem of vomiting; thus, it can
be inferred that the said pesticides might be the reason for his
death, inasmuch as, no reason has been shown by the
prosecution as to why the victim will commit suicide.
The learned trial court has not considered properly the
entire evidence and committed error in convicting the
appellant.
10. Having regard to the discussions made herein above
the appellant deserves benefit of doubt. Consequently, the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
26.07.2004/28.07.2004, respectively, passed by the learned
5th Additional Sessions Judge Godda, F.T.C. No.-II in
Sessions Case No. 152 of 2002, is hereby, quashed and set
aside. As a result, the instant criminal appeal stands allowed.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Jharkhand High
Court Legal Services Committee for quantifying the fee of
learned Amicus and a copy of this order be also
communicated to the court below and to the appellant
through the concerned police station.
12. Let the lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
