Mukru @ Konda Bodra vs State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 3512 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mukru @ Konda Bodra vs State Of Jharkhand on 2 April, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                     Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1173 of 2017

     Against the Judgment of conviction dated 27.04.2017 and order of
     sentence dated 29.04.2017 passed by Sri Dinesh Rai, the Addl.
     Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Session Trial
     No. 203 of 2013.

   Mukru @ Konda Bodra                               ..............APPELLANT
                           Versus
    State of Jharkhand                              ............RESPONDENT
                                         ......

          For the Appellants         : Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary,Advocate.
          For the State              : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
                                        ......

                                  PRESENT
                               SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                               SRI SUBHASH CHAND, J.

                                  JUDGMENT

Per, Ananda Sen, J.

This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 27.04.2017 and order of sentence dated 29.04.2017 passed by Sri Dinesh Rai, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Session Trial No. 203 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the appellant having been found guilty of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, the appellant shall serve further S.I. of six months.

2. The case of the prosecution, as per the informant (P.W. 1) , namely Nanguri Bodra is that on 27.11.2012, an altercation took place between her son Mukru @ Kondo Bodra and daughter in-law Jema Bodra, due to which, her son committed the murder of his wife in the night by cutting her neck with sickle on her bed. At the time of occurrence, informant was sleeping in her house and hearing the cry of her daughter-in-law, she went into the house of the deceased where her son Mukru told her that her wife used to quarrel with him, therefore he has committed her murder by cutting her neck with sickle. Thereafter her son fled away. She informed this incident to village Munda (P.W. 4) and Dakua (P.W. 3).

On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan of the informant, Muffasil P.S. Case No. 105/2012 was registered for the offence under

Page/1 Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, against the appellant. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for investigation and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken vide order dated 30.1.2013 and the case was committed to Court of Sessions for trial.

3. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses, who are as follows; P.W.-1, Nanguri Bodra, the informant of this case, has deposed that Mukru @ Konda Bodra is her son, but she did not know why he is in jail. She deposed that the police did not take her statement in in this case. She had given no fardbeyan regarding the murder of her daughter-in-law before the police, thus, she has been declared hostile.

P.W.-2, Rautu Bodra, has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the appellant is his nephew and his marriage was solemnized with Jema Bodra. He deposed that the murder of the deceased Jema Bodra was committed but he did not know who had committed her murder. This witness has been declared hostile.

PW- 3, Surendra Gagrai, deposed that the appellant Mukru @ Konda Bodra is at present in jail. He had committed the murder of his wife by cutting her neck with sickle. He along with police went to the house of the appellant and saw the dead body of his wife lying on the ground at his house. He did not see the sickle by which, the murder of deceased was committed. Konda's mother (informant) told him that Konda had committed the murder of his wife by cutting her neck with sickle. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he could not tell the date of occurrence. He went to the place of occurrence along with police. He was not an eye witness of this case. He further deposed that he did not go inside the house of Konda Bodra. He denied the defence suggestion that the appellant was innocent and he had not committed the murder of his wife. He also stated about the presence of P./W. 4 at the place of occurrence.

P.W.-4, Sanjay Bari, a Village Munda, has deposed that the appellant is in jail for committing the murder of his wife. The mother of Konda told him that Konda committed the murder of his wife by cutting her neck with sickle while she was sleeping. He gave telephonic information of this case to the police station and he along with police, villagers and Dakua Surendra Gagrai, went to the house of Konda and opened his house. He further

Page/2 deposed that the police recovered the blood smeared sickle and bed and made a seizure list, upon which, he put his signature and the same has been marked as Ext.-1. He also put his signature on inquest report, which has been marked as Ext.2. Konda's mother Nanguri Bodra gave her statement to the police before him and villagers. He denied the defence suggestion that seizure list was not prepared before him. P.W.5-Dr. Devi Prasad Hansda, is the Medical Officer of this case, who deposed that on 28.11.2012 at about 12:30 p.m. he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the following antemortem injuries:-

(i) Sharp cutting wound present in upper part of neck extending from right angle to mandible to left angle of mandible.

(ii) Following structures are damaged during cut throat injury larynx and trachea, oesophagoes, great vessels, soft tissue with blood and blood clot.

Opinion: All above mentioned injuries are antemortem in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon. Rigor mortis present in all four limbs.

Cause of death: Hemorrhage and shock caused by above mentioned injuries. Time since death -within 24 hours.

Such type of injuries may be caused by sickle.

In cross-examination, he deposed that no weapon was produced before him. The postmortem was done only by him.

P.W 6- Dactor Singh Bodra , has deposed that he did not know Jema Bodra but he had gone to her house on the date while the murder was committed. He saw her dead body inside the house. This witness has also been declared hostile.

P.W.7- S.I. Shivshankar Pandey is the Investigating Officer of this case. He had deposed that he recorded the fardbeyan of informant Nanguri Bodra in presence of village Munda Sanjay Bari (P.W. 4). During course of examination of this witness fardbeyan, formal FIR, Inquest report of Jema Bodra, arrest memo of the appellant have been marked as Ext. 3/1, 3/2, 5, 6 and 7 respectively. He further deposed that he seized blood smeared sickle and blood soaked bed-sheet and prepared the seizure list and took the signature of witnesses, Sanjay Bari, Kurpa Bodra and S.I. Jangbahadur

Page/3 Rai on identification, which has been marked as Ext. 8. He arrested the accused from Baisimbiya and recorded his confessional statement which has been marked as Ext.9.

In cross-examination, he deposed that there was no eye witness of this case.

4. Some documentary evidences have also been produced and exhibited on behalf of the prosecution.

5. After closure of evidences, the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, in which he has pleaded not guilty. Appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence.

6. The Trial Court after going through the materials on record and also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has found the charge levelled against the appellant to be proved and, thereafter, sentenced him as aforesaid.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the informant (P.W. 1) has been declared hostile. She stated that she had not given any statement before the police about the murder of her daughter-in-law. Thus in view of her statement, the entire prosecution case even the FIR gets demolished. So far as P.W. 3 is concerned, admittedly he is not an eye witness to the occurrence. He had gone to the house and saw the dead body, once the murder had already committed. He further stated that it is P.W. 1 who had informed him that it is the appellant who had committed the murder of his wife. Similar is the statement of P.W. 4. Thus, there are no material to implicate this appellant in this case, thus, this appellant needs to be acquitted.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that even if the informant has become hostile that will not demolish the prosecution case as P.W.s 3 and 4 clearly stated that it is the informant who had disclosed before them that this appellant has committed the murder of the deceased. He further submitted that the medical evidence corroborates the statement and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place, thus the appellant's guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

9. We have gone through the record and evidences as well as impugned judgment. We find that this appellant is the husband of the deceased and son of P.W. 1. As per the FIR, an altercation had taken place

Page/4 between this appellant and his wife in their house. At that time, the informant was in the adjacent house. At night, the appellant cut the throat of the deceased with sickle . On hearing the cry, the informant went to the house to the appellant, when this appellant disclosed before her that there was some altercation between the deceased and him, as a result of which, with sickle he cut the throat of the deceased. This informant while deposing as P.W. 1 became hostile.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bable @ Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh report in (2012) 11 SCC 181 in paragraph 14 has held that once the registration of FIR is proved by the police and the same is accepted on record by the Court and the prosecution establishes its case beyond reasonable doubt by other admissible cogent and relevant evidences, it will be impermissible for the Court to ignore the evidentiary value of the FIR. Similar is the case here. The FIR, which has been lodged by the informant has been proved. Though the informant has stated as a witness, that she has not given any statement before the police, but the I.O., who is P.W. 7 has clearly stated that it is this informant who has recorded her fardbeyan, which led to registration of the FIR. Fardbeyan was also exhibited by him. P.Ws. 3 and 4 also stated about registration of FIR by informant. Thus, once the registered fradbeyan has been exhibited, we have to see that as to whether there are other cogent and reliable evidence in support of the said fardbeyan. P.W. 3, though, he had not seen the occurrence, but he went to the house of the appellant and saw the dead body. He stated that it is the informant who had told him that the appellant has committed the murder of his wife with sickle. He further stated that when this statement was given by the informant, Sanjay Bari and other villagers were present. This Sanjay Bari was also examined as P.W. 4, who happens to be village Munda. He also stated that it is P.W. 1 who had narrated before him that it is the appellant who had committed the murder of the deceased by cutting her neck with sickle while she was sleeping. He also stated in his evidence that Surendra Gagrai, who is P.W. 3, was also present there. Thus the statement of P.Ws. 2 and 3 corroborates each other, both these witnesses stated that it is P.W. 1/informant who had stated that his son (appellant) confessed before her that he has murdered his wife.

11. So far as other circumstances are concerned, it is also the prosecution case that there was no other person present in the house save

Page/5 and except the appellant and the deceased. It is also not the defence case that someone else has committed the murder of the deceased or were present in the house. The circumstances, clearly points towards the guilt of this appellant. In this case, on the facts, Section 103 of the Evidence Act is attracted, wherein the appellant has to explain the circumstances as to how the deceased died when the occurrence had taken in the room of the deceased when there was none other in the room except the appellant. Further immediately after the occurrence, as per the FIR, P.W. 1 reached and it is this appellant, who has confessed before P.W. 1 that he has committed the murder of the deceased. The informant also communicated the aforesaid fact to P.Ws. 3 and 4, who had deposed and corroborated the aforesaid fact. Further the doctor also found that sharp cutting wound present in upper part of neck extending from right angle to mandible and to left angle of mandible and the throat was cut; injuring larynx and trachea, oesophagi, great vessels, soft tissue with blood and blood clot. The Doctor also opined that this injury can be caused by sickle. The I.O. in his cross- examination, had stated that it is the informant who told him that the appellant has confessed before her that he has committed the murder of the deceased. The sickle was also recovered. Thus the FIR will not loose its evidentiary value, even if the informant (P.W.1)has become hostile, when the prosecution is able to prove and establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

12. Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the trial court was justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction dated 27.04.2017 and order of sentence dated 29.04.2017 passed by Sri Dinesh Rai, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge- III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Session Trial No. 203 of 2013 do not warrant any interference by this Court and, hence, it is affirmed.

13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(SUBHASH CHAND, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.

Dated: the 02nd April, 2024 NAFR/Anu/Cp.-3.

Page/6