Abhimanyu Ahir vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 514 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Abhimanyu Ahir vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 January, 2024

Author: Ratnaker Bhengra

Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra, Ambuj Nath

                                  Acquittal Appeal No. 35 of 2018
                                               With
                                  Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 362 of 2016
                                                 ---

Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2016 and 31.03.2016 respectively passed by Shri Taufiqul Hassan, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI in Sessions Trial No. 540 / 2013.

---

        Acquittal Appeal No. 35 of 2018
        Abhimanyu Ahir                        ---         ---          ---   Appellant
                                              Versus
        1. The State of Jharkhand
        2. Anand Ahir                         ---         ---          ---   Respondents

        Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 362 of 2016
        Anand Ahir                             ---            ---          ---   Appellant
                                               Versus
        The State of Jharkhand                 ---            ---          ---   Respondent
                                                   ---

For the Appellant: M.s H.K. Mahato, Ahalaya Mahto, Jyotsna Mahto, Advocates [Acquittal Appeal 35/2018] M/s Prashant Pallav, Parth Jalan, Advocate [Cr. Appeal 362/2018) For the Resp.-State: Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P [Cr. Appeal 362/2018]

---

PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ratnaker Bhengra Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

----

        Reserved on: 03.01.2024                              Pronounced on: 18.01.2024
                                                  ---
Ambuj Nath, J:     Both these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment dated

30.03.2016, passed by Md. Taufiqul Hassan, Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 540/2013 arising out of Sonahatu (R) P.S. Case No. 33/2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 2139/2013, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi held the appellant Anand Ahir (Cr. Appeal No. 362/2016) guilty of the offences under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I for two years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for six years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, appellant Anand Ahir was further directed to undergo R.I for six months for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for one year for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period already undergone by the appellant Anand Ahir during the trial was ordered to be set off.

2. The appellant Abhimanyu Ahir in Acquittal Appeal No. 35/2018 has contested the aforesaid judgment passed by Md. Taufiqul Hassan, Additional Judicial

Commissioner-XI, Ranchi holding the appellant Anand Ahir in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 362/2016 guilty of the offences under sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and not for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has prayed that the judgment dated 30.03.2016 be modified and the appellant Anand Ahir be held guilty of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, instead of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of sentence dated 31.03.2016 be enhanced accordingly.

3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the Informant Abhimanyu Ahir, alleging therein that his daughter Suchita Devi was married to the appellant Anand Ahir in the year 2001. There was no issue from the wedlock. After 13 years of the marriage, the appellant Anand Ahir took his wife Suchita Devi and left her at her father's house. On query, his daughter told him that Anand Ahir was demanding a motorcycle and one lakh rupees. On 18.04.2013, the appellant Anand Ahir returned and took his wife back to her matrimonial home. On 27.04.2013, Suchita Devi called the Informant and told him that the appellant was abusing and assaulting her. On the next day i.e. 28.04.2013, the Informant received information that his daughter Suchita Devi has died. He went to her matrimonial home and saw her dead body lying on the cot. Appellant Anand Ahir told him that she had committed suicide by hanging.

` 4. Initially, present case was instituted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, police also found the case to be true and submitted charge sheet against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, on 31.05.2013. Cognizance of the case was taken by Shri S.B. Ojha, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi on 11.06.2013 under the aforesaid section. Learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of sessions on 24.06.2013 as it was exclusively triable by the session's court.

5. Charge was framed against the appellant Anand Ahir under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and alternatively also under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Contents of the charge was read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidences.

Feku Ram Mahato (P.W-1) is a formal witness. He has stated that he has seen the dead body of the deceased.

Bhim Ahir (P.W-2) has stated that he does not know anything about the occurrence.

Abhi Ram (P.W-3) has also stated that he does not know anything about the occurrence.

Arun Ahir (P.W-4) has also stated that he has no knowledge about the occurrence.

Raj Kishore Mahato (P.W-5) has stated that the deceased Suchita Devi was the wife of the appellant Anand Ahir and she had hanged herself three months ago. He has been declared hostile.

Dilip Ahir (P.W-6) is the cousin of the deceased. He has supported the prosecution case.

Sanjay Ahir (P.W-7) is another cousin of the deceased. He has supported the prosecution case.

Niranjan Ahir (P.W-8) is a hostile witness.

Abhimanyu Ahir (P.W-9) is the Informant of this case and the appellant in Acquittal Appeal No. 35/2018. He has supported the prosecution case. He has proved the written report which is Ext.-1.

Julen Sishir Murmu (P.W-10) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the formal FIR which is Ext.-4. He has proved the place of occurrence which is a room in the matrimonial home of the deceased. He has further proved the seizure list regarding seizure of the rope by which the deceased was found hanging, which is Ext.-

5. Dr. Ajit Kr. Choudhary (P.W-11) has performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Suchita Devi. He has proved the postmortem report which is Ext.-6.

Samal Mahato (P.W-12) is a witness who has proved the material exhibit i.e. the rope by which the deceased was found hanging.

6. Statement of the appellant Anand Ahir was recorded under section 313 of the Cr. P.C. Defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication.

Appellant Anand Ahir has also adduced oral evidence in support of his case. Asaram Ahir (D.W-1) has stated that the deceased has committed suicide in a room which was locked from the inside.

Sukhnandan Ahir (D.W-2) has stated that at the time of occurrence, he had gone with the appellant to graze cattle. He has stated that the deceased had committed suicide in a room locked from the inside.

7. On the basis of the evidence - both oral and documentary available on the record

- learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty for the offences under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him of the charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Both the Informant Abhimanyu Ahir in Acquittal Appeal No. 35 of 2018 and Anand Ahir in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 316 of 2018 have filed these appeals against the same impugned judgment.

9. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant Abhimanyu Ahir in Acquittal Appeal No. 35 of 2018 that though, the doctor had opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia because of hanging, but the postmortem report shows that there were two abrasion and contusion on the body of the deceased which were ante mortem in nature. It was submitted that the deceased might have resisted when she was forcibly been hung by the accused. Accordingly, it was submitted that the deceased died homicidal death as she was forcibly hung by the accused, which is manifested by mark of violence on her body. It was further submitted that the accused had failed to discharge burden imposed upon him under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the deceased has committed suicide. In fact, learned Trial Court should have held the accused guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

10. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant Anand Ahir in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 362 of 2016 that the postmortem report clearly indicates that the deceased has committed suicide. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that all the prosecution witnesses including the Informant have admitted that there was cordial relationship between the appellant Anand Ahir and the deceased Suchita Devi since last 13 years. It was further submitted that mere isolated incidence of violence leading the deceased to commit suicide will not constitute the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. On these grounds, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and this appellant be acquitted of the charge.

11. Now, it has to be ascertained, i. Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant Anand Ahir for offences u/s 498 A and 306 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt? ii. Whether the deceased Suchita Devi died homicidal death and the learned Trial Court had wrongly acquitted the accused Anand Ahir of the charges for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code?

12. From perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it transpires that Dilip Ahir (P.W-6) and Sanjay Ahir (P.W-7) who are cousins of the deceased Suchita Devi, have stated that their marriage was solemnized in the year 2001 i.e., about 13 years prior to the date of occurrence. Both these witnesses have stated that on 17.04.20213, the appellant Anand Ahir had dropped Suchita Devi in her paternal house. On query, she stated that the appellant Anand Ahir was demanding a motorcycle as dowry. On the next day, appellant Anand Ahir took Suchita Devi back

to her matrimonial home. These witnesses have further stated that on 27.04.2013, Suchita Devi informed them that the appellant Anand Ahir was quarreling with her and thereafter, her mobile phone was snatched. On 28.04.2013 they were informed that Suchita Devi had committed suicide by hanging. Both these witnesses went to the place of occurrence i.e., matrimonial home of the deceased Suchita Devi and found her dead body lying on a cot.

Both these witnesses have been cross-examined at length. Dilip Ahir (P.W-6) has stated that the fact that there was some dispute between the appellant Anand Ahir and the deceased Suchita Devi, has transpired on 17.04.2013. Prior to that, they had not heard anything about the marital discord between the appellant Anand Ahir and the deceased Suchita Devi. He has further stated that as she could not conceive, she was mentally disturbed.

Sanjay Ahir (P.W-7) in his cross-examination has stated that the deceased could not conceive, due to which, she was mentally disturbed. He has further admitted that the appellant Anand Ahir was getting her treated for infertility. At para-6, he has stated that there was cordial relationship between the appellant Anand Ahir and the deceased.

13. Abhimanyu Ahir (P.W-9) is the Informant of this case. He is the appellant in Acquittal Appeal No. 35 of 2018. He has proved his signature on the written report which is Ext.-1. He has stated that his daughter Suchita Devi was married to the appellant Anand Ahir. She was issueless. He has further stated that due to this, appellant used to torture his daughter. He has further stated that on 17.04.2013, the appellant Anand Ahir dropped his daughter Suchita Devi to his house. On query, his daughter told him that that the appellant Anand Ahir was demanding a motorcycle and one lakh rupees. This witness talked to Anand Ahir and promised to fulfill the demand within a month. He has further stated that on 18.04.2013, the appellant Anand Ahir took his daughter back to their matrimonial home. On 27.04.2013, his daughter called him on mobile phone and told him that the appellant Anand Ahir is assaulting her. While she was talking to this witness, her mobile phone was snatched. On 28.04.2013 at about 5.00 p.m. Asaram Ahir (D.W-1) who was the brother-in-law of the appellant Anand Ahir informed him that Suchita Devi has committed suicide by hanging herself, on which he went to the place of occurrence at her matrimonial home and saw injury on her neck, chest and head. Blood was oozing from the nostrils. He has denied suggestion that his daughter had committed suicide because she was disturbed due to her infertility.

14. From the oral testimony of these witnesses, it is apparent that the marriage between the appellant Anand Ahir and the deceased Suchita Devi was solemnized 13

years ago. Their relationship during this period was cordial. It further transpires that Suchita Devi could not conceive due to which, she was mentally disturbed. However, from the statement of these witnesses, it is apparent that just a month before the occurrence, there was some marital discord between the parties and the appellant Anand Ahir had dropped his wife to her paternal house. These witnesses have further stated that the deceased had informed them that the appellant Anand Ahir was demanding a motorcycle and one lakh rupees from the Informant. They have also stated that a day prior to the occurrence, Suchita Devi had informed them that the appellant Anand Ahir was assaulting her and while on the call, her mobile phone was snatched. On the next day, Suchita Devi was found dead in her matrimonial home in unnatural circumstances.

15. Dr. Ajit Kr. Choudhary (P.W-11) had performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Suchita Devi and found the following injuries on her person.

1. Injuries: -

(i) Abrasion 1"X ½"c.m. on right cheek near upper lip.

(ii) 1X ½ c.m on left side of forehead.

(iii) Contusion over left side of face.

Ligature Mark: -

(i) 1.5 to 2 c.m. in width situated on upper part of neck. It is oblique and high up towards left side of neck. Ligature mark was prominent all around the neck except left mastoid region just behind the left ear where it is discontinuous. The ligature mark is abraded and continuous at places. All internal organs are congested.

3. Internal: -

There is diffused contusion on left front to parietal carp.

4. Opinion: -

(i) The above noted abrasion and contusion is ante mortem caused by hard and blunt substance and is not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

(ii) Above noted ligature mark is ante mortem.

According to this witness, deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.

16. Ligature mark found on the neck of the deceased is situated in the upper part of the neck. It was oblique and extends high up to the left side of the neck. Ligature mark was prominent all around the neck except left mastoid region just behind the left ear where it is discontinuous.

If a person is strangulated by rope, the ligature mark is circular in nature. As the ligature mark was oblique and extended high up to left side of the neck and it was

prominent all around the neck except left mastoid region, the facts point out that the deceased Suchita Devi died due to hanging.

17. However, it is fact that there was mark of violence on the dead body of Suchita Devi. There were two abrasions on her upper lip and forehead and there was contusion over left side of her face. Niranjan Ahir (P.W-8) has stated that the deceased Suchita Devi informed him a day prior to the occurrence that the accused was quarreling with her and he was assaulting her. One explanation to the injury found on the person of the deceased will be that she has sustained injury on her person a day prior to the occurrence. Dr. Ajit Kr. Choudhary (P.W-11) has not stated in the postmortem report regarding the age of the mechanical injury sustained by the deceased. Learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that a day prior to the occurrence, as the appellant Anand Ahir had assaulted the deceased, she must have sustained injuries found on her person.

From the above discussion, it is apparent that two views are possible on the point, whether the deceased Suchita Devi died a homicidal death or she committed suicide. Mechanical injuries found on her person may have been inflicted if she was forcibly hung to give her murder colour of suicide "or" the mechanical injuries were sustained a day prior to her death when she was assaulted by the appellant Anand Ahir. As discussed above, Dr. Ajit Kr. Choudhary (P.W-11) has not stated in the postmortem report regarding the age of the mechanical injury sustained by the deceased. The learned Trial court has taken a view in favour of the appellant Anand Ahir and rightly so, as per the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, the view which favours the accused has to be taken into account while analyzing the evidence.

18. Appellant Anand Ahir has led oral evidence on the point that at the time when Suchita Devi died, he was not present in the house, rather he had gone to graze his cattle along with Sukhnandan Ahir (D.W-2). Sukhnandan Ahir (D.W-2) has stated that the appellant Anand Ahir had gone to graze cattle with him on the date of occurrence. When they returned, they found the door of the room in which deceased committed suicide locked from the inside. They broke open the door and found Suchita Devi hanging from the roof with severed rope and brought the dead body down.

19. Deceased Suchita Devi died in her matrimonial home. Appellant Anand Ahir was imposed with a burden under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain her death and the injury found on her person. The explanation is that she committed suicide. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the deceased did not die homicidal death, rather she committed suicide. However, the injury found on her person substantiates the prosecution case that a day prior to the occurrence, the appellant Anand Ahir assaulted her due to which she sustained injuries. Deceased who

was already under trauma because of her inability to conceive, was further traumatized due to the fact that the appellant Anand Ahir started abusing her and assaulting her from sometime prior to the occurrence. It is not an isolated case that the deceased was assaulted on 27.04.2013. Rather since last ten days, there was marital discord between the parties and the appellant Anand Ahir had dropped the deceased to her paternal house. Subsequently, she returned back with the appellant to her matrimonial home, but quarrel continued. Being agitated, deceased committed suicide.

20. From the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the deceased was not traumatized by the act of the appellant Anand Ahir and it was totally because of her inability to conceive she committed suicide. Learned Trial Court has rightly come to the finding that the deceased committed suicide because she was under trauma as the appellant Anand Ahir was quarreling with her and assaulting her.

Learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellant Anand Ahir of the charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Coded and correctly held him guilty of the offence under section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and does not require any interference.

21. Accordingly, both the Acquittal Appeal No. 35 of 2018 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 362 of 2016 are dismissed. Appellant-Anand Ahir is on bail. If he has not already served the sentence, his bail bonds will stand cancelled. Learned court below will take him into custody to serve the remaining sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court.

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J)

(Ambuj Nath, J) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 18 January 2024 Ranjeet/