Churaman Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 6347 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Churaman Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                    Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 378 of 2016

     Against the Judgment of conviction dated 07.04.2016 and order
     of sentence dated 08.04.2016 passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar
     Srivastava, the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Bermo at
     Tenughat in Sessions Case No. 351 of 2010.

    Churaman Mahto                                     ..............APPELLANT
                              Versus
    State of Jharkhand                                ............RESPONDENT
                                           ......

          For the Appellant            : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate.
          For the State                : Mr. Saket Kumar, 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 07.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 08.04.2016 passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Case No. 351 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the appellant having been found guilty of offence under Sections 307 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, the appellant shall serve further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 307 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 498A IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is based on the basis of fardbeyan of Kari Devi, wife of the accused, in which she stated that about 20 years ago, her marriage was solemnized with the accused-appellant. The appellant used to assault her, but to save her prestige, she did not narrate it to any person of her maternal house. On 10.05.2010 her husband brutally assaulted her and she ran away and reached her parental house from where she contacted Nawadih Police Station where her husband and his family were called and the police pacified the

Page/1 dispute between them. Thereafter she again went her matrimonial house, but her husband again started assaulting her. A village panchayat was convened and it was decided that the husband and wife should be sent to live for certain period at paternal house of the wife and they went there. It is further alleged that on 14.5.2010 in the night, her husband stretched out her feet and after that inserted an iron rod in her private part and he started pressing her neck. Thereafter, blood started oozing out. Her brother with the help of others brought her at Government Hospital Nawadih, where she was provided first aid and was advised to go to higher medical centre. On 15.5.2010, she was taken to Dr. S. Kumar's Clinic at Fusro, where the police recorded her fardbeyan.

On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan, Nawadih P.S. Case No. 36/2010 was registered for the offence under Sections 498A, 323 and 307 of the 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 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 five witnesses. P.W.-1, Dr. Shakuntala Kumar, has deposed that on 15.5.2010 she had examined Kari Devi i.e. the injured and opined that the condition of the injured was critical and she was in shock. She found a tear about 3 ¼ inch at the cervico- vaginal junction on the right side of the cervix and the injury appeared to have been caused by sharp instrument. The doctor also found a tear on the perinium and she gave five stitches for the internal injuries and five stitches on the perinium. The Doctor further deposed that due to the poverty of the patient, she admitted the injured in her nursing home and provided her conservative treatment to bring up the hemoglobin level and antibiotics were administered to prevent infection. The Doctor has proved the injury report prepared by her, which is Ext.-P1. The doctor deposed that she issued the laboratory report (Ext.-P2) and put her signature over it. She opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and were dangerous for life of the injured-victim. In cross-examination, she stated that after giving treatment, she could survive and she did survive.

Page/2 P.W.2- Jaswa Devi: is the mother of the injured who deposed that about 20 years ago, the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with Churaman Mahto and the injured was being tortured by her husband because she had no issue. She further deposed that about eight months back, her daughter and son-in-law were residing in a room at her own house and one night her son in-law assaulted her daughter brutally with iron rod giving injuries on her private part and blood was oozing out. Thereafter the injured was taken to hospital by her and her son where she was treated for a period of fifteen days.

P.W.3- Kari Devi is the injured-victim of this case. She deposed that twenty years ago her marriage was solemnized with this appellant. She further deposed that her husband was not accepting the food, served by her and he used to take the same by her Gotani. Thereafter, she contacted the panches, who decided that at least for a period of three months they should live together at her maternal house. She further deposed that one night her husband penetrated an iron rod in her private part and when she tried to raise alarm, he pressed her neck by his leg. She further deposed that due to excess bleeding, she became unconscious and after half an hour, when she regained her consciousness, she went to her mother's room and narrated about the incident. Thereafter her mother and brother took her to the hospital where she was treated. She further deposed that the police came to the hospital and recorded her statement.

In cross-examination, she deposed that she along with her husband i.e. the appellant had been living in her naihar since last six months and the incident had taken place in her naihar. P.W.4- Baldeo Mahto: This witness is the brother the injured, who deposed that on the night of occurrence when he was in his room, his mother came and informed about the incident. He also deposed that the blood was oozing out from the private part of his sister and his sister told that her husband had assaulted her by rod. Thereafter he along with his mother took the injured to Nawadih Hospital and from where to Fusro Hospital where the doctor treated her.

P.W.5- Vijay Rajak: is the Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 18.5.2010, the fardbeyan which was recorded by ASI Sohan Ram, upon which, the case was registered and S.I. gave the charge of Page/3 investigation to him. He proved the endorsement made by the then Officer-in-Charge of Police Station, which has been marked as Ext. P-3. He further deposed that he recorded the re-statement of the injured as well as the statement of others. He also deposed that he visited the place of occurrence i.e. maternal house of the victim. He arrested the appellant from his village Birani on 18.5.2010 and prepared the memo of arrest (Ext-P4) and finally filed chargesheet against the appellant.

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

5. 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.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is alleged that the injured (wife of the appellant) was assaulted with rod, but surprisingly the said rod was not recovered and produced before the Court, which creates doubt about the prosecution case. It is further argued that the injuries sustained by the victim are not grievous in nature, thus, the appellant could not have been convicted in this case. As per him the witnesses, on fact, are related witnesses and are unreliable as they naturally supported the informant. There are no materials to suggest that the appellant had any intention to commit murder of the injured or had any knowledge that inflicting the aforesaid injuries would be of such a grave nature, which can cause death. In absence of these basic ingredients, the appellant could not have been convicted under Sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He also submits that there is no material to implicate this appellant in this case, thus, this appellant needs to be acquitted.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the injured is none other than the wife of this appellant. There are the evidence that the appellant had tortured the injured and the medical evidence clearly corroborates the ocular evidence and also the evidence of the injured, which clearly suggests that it is only this appellant who had committed the offence. It is further Page/4 stated that the manner of assault, which is corroborated with the medical evidence clearly would lead to the sole conclusion that the intention of this appellant was to commit the murder of the injured, that being so, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC need no interference.

8. We have gone through the record and evidences as well as impugned judgment. We find that the entire cases hinges upon the statement of the victim-injured (P.W.3) and the Doctor. The victim- injured (P.W.3) clearly stated that she was assaulted by this appellant and on the fateful night her husband penetrated an iron rod in her private part and when she tried to raise alarm, she was gagged. She further stated that there was excess bleeding from her private part and she became unconscious. P.W.4, who is the brother of the injured-victim also stated that the victim had narrated the aforesaid facts. It is he along with her mother who had taken the injured to Nawadih hospital and from there to Fusro Hospital. The mother of the injured (P.W.2) also stated the aforesaid facts. All these witnesses clearly stated that at the time of occurrence, this appellant was residing in their house along with his wife, who is the victim of this case.

9. The fact, that the victim was being assaulted, has been supported by P.Ws. 2 and 4. Since the occurrence had taken place in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4 and that too, at night, there would not be any independent witnesses in support of the fact that the appellant mercilessly assaulted the victim and also penetrated an iron rod in her private part, resulting in massive bleeding.

10. The aforesaid fact of assault has also been supported by the Doctor. The doctor found tear at the cervical vaginal junction on the right side of the cervix and the injury was caused by sharp weapon. The doctor also gave five stitches for the internal injuries and five stitches on the perineum. The doctor also found that injury was critical and she was in shock. The evidence of the doctor thus corroborates with the statement of P.W.3 i.e. the injured, as the doctor also found serious injury on her private part. We do not find any material to disbelieve the statement of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 in this case more so when the medical report supports the ocular evidence. Doctor also deposed that the injury was dangerous for the life of the victim.

11. Considering the aforesaid evidences, we find that the Page/5 prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. We find no ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction.

12. So far as sentence is concerned, we find that the appellant has faced rigors of trial since long as the occurrence is of the year 2010 and today, we are in the year 2024. The sentence of appellant is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Considering the rigors which he has faced, we reduce the sentence to five years.

13. Thus, the appellant is directed to surrender within one month and to serve rest of the sentence, failing which, the trial court is directed to take all steps to get the appellant arrested and send him in custody to complete the rest of the sentence.

14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed only with the modification in the sentence.

15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

16. 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 01st July, 2024.

NAFR/Anu/Cp.-3.

Page/6