Jharkhand High Court
Ajay Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
.........
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 07.11.2002 and order of
sentence dated 08.11.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge (Fast Track Court No.IV) at Dhanbad in S.T. No.317 of 2001).
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 780 of 2002
.........
Ajay Pandey, S/o Shri Bhagirath Pandey, R/o Village Masmohana, P.S.
Markacho, Dist.- Koderma
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
.........
For the Appellant : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Nutan Kr. Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. Public Prosecutor
-----------
PRESENT
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
JUDGMENT
11.11.2024
By Court:
This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of
conviction dated 07.11.2002 and order of sentence dated
08.11.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track Court No.IV) at Dhanbad in S.T. No.317 of 2001, whereby
the sole appellant was convicted under section 302 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that there
is no legal evidence to convict the appellant in this case. The
medical evidence clearly falsified the prosecution story. There
are no eye witness to the allegation of assault upon the deceased
by the appellant. On these grounds, learned counsel for the
appellant prays for acquittal.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the informant
and the other witnesses have supported the prosecution case to
the effect that this appellant had assaulted the deceased. The
death is the result of the said assault. Thus, this appeal needs to
be dismissed.
4. Prosecution story as per the fardbeyan of the informant-
Mangal Hembram [P.W.-10(A)] is that the deceased was his
mother. His father died earlier, who was in employment under
B.C.C.L. Mother got employed in place of his father, she also
took V.R.S. and in her place, the informant was appointed. It is
the prosecution case that after the death of the father of the
informant, the deceased was residing with the appellant in a
house place at Mattigraha. She used to come to the informant to
talk about withdrawal of money from her service account. It is
alleged that the deceased used to complain against this appellant
that this appellant was demanding money from her. It is further
stated that in the morning at about 06.00 A.M., the deceased
came to the house of the informant and told her that this
appellant had assaulted her, as a result which, she was feeling
sick. Thereafter the informant provided her medicine and went
for work. When the informant returned at 05.00 P.M., he saw the
condition of his mother was deteriorating and his sister was
giving an oil massage to her. Seeing the condition of his mother,
the informant called on his neighbour and was taking her mother
to the hospital, but on the way she died. The informant thereafter
went to the native village and on the way he informed the police.
5. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Baghmara P.S Case No.62 of
2001 was registered under Section 302 of IPC.
6. After investigation police submitted chargesheet against
the appellant and cognizance was taken for the offence under
Section 302 of IPC. Thereafter the case was committed to the
court of Sessions where charge was read over and explained to
the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section
302 IPC and the trial proceeded.
7. Altogether thirteen witnesses have been examined in this
case, who are as follows:-
(i) P.W.-1 Ramesh Rajak
(ii) P.W.-2 Badhan Rajak
(iii) P.W.-3 Dinesh Tudoo
(iv) P.W.-4 Panwa Devi
(v) P.W.-5 Sudhir Kisko
(vi) P.W.-6 Rumdahin Thakur
(vii)P.W.-7 Prem Lal Nonia
(viii) P.W.-8 Shambhu Kumar Vishwkarma
(xi)P.W.-9 Bhairo Kiskoo
(x) P.W.-10 Karamchand Kiskoo
(xi) P.W.-10(A) Mangal Hembram, informant of this case
(xii) P.W.-11 Dr. Shailendra Kumar
(xiii)P.W.-12 Lalan Kumar Thakur, Investigating Officer
8. The following documentary evidences were exhibited by
the prosecution:-
Exhibit-1- Signature of P.W.3 on inquest report (carbon copy)
Exhibit-1/1 Signature of P.W.-9 on written report
Exhibit- 2 Fardbeyan
Exhibit- 1/2 Signature of the informant on inquest report
Exhibit-3 Postmortem report
Exhibit-4 Inquest report
Exhibit- 1/3 signature of Investigating Officer on formal F.I.R.
9. The Trial Court after completion of the prosecution
evidence examined this appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
and after hearing the parties, convicted this appellant under
section 302 of IPC.
In this case, the important witness is the informant [P.W.-
10(A)] and the Doctor (P.W.11).
P.W.-10(A), the informant stated that on 31.03.2001 her
mother (deceased) came to his house in the morning and uttered
with groan that this appellant had assaulted her and also pressed
her chest and put physical pressure upon her, as a result of
which she is not feeling well. She made a deep sound in pain and
she was having bodyache. This witness provided some pain
killer medicine and went to his work. When he returned at about
05.00 P.M., he saw his mother's condition deteriorating, then he
called his neighbour and narrated the entire fact to him.
Thereafter, son of the neighbour along with him was taking her
mother to the hospital, on the way her mother died. He stated
that this appellant was demanding money from her mother
saying that as she has given service to her son, money should be
given to him. As her mother refused to give any money, this
appellant had assaulted him. This appellant has proved his
fardbeyan and signature on the inquest report, which was marked
as Exhibits-2 and 1/2.
P.W.-4, who is the daughter of the deceased, she stated that
this appellant demanded money and thereafter assaulted her by
pressing her chest and applying pressure. The genesis of the
occurrence is that the appellant was demanding money from the
deceased which the deceased refused to pay. She further stated
that after assault, in the next morning her mother came in ailing
condition, she took care of her, but later on, she died in the
evening when her brother was taking her to the hospital.
The statement of these two witnesses suggests that after
being assaulted, the deceased came to the house of the informant
where the informant and P.W.-4 were present. The informant
gave some medicines and thereafter went to his work and when
he returned at about 05.00 P.M. in the evening, he saw the
condition of his mother deteriorated. Then she was taken to the
hospital, but on the way she died.
10. P.W.-11. Dr. Shailendra Kumar is the Doctor, who
conducted the postmortem of the deceased. He found the
following:-
"(1) Abression:-
(a) 1/4"Diameter on middle of forehead.
(b) 1/4" Diameter on left side of forehead.
(c) 3/4"x 1/2"over left zygomatic Arch
(d) 1"x 1/4"on left side front of chest 1"below the breast.
(e) 1"x 1/4" on back of right elbow.
(2) Bruises:- Bruises brown in colour.
(a) Along the both eye lids upper and lower on both sides.
(b) all over the Zygomatic area of face on both sides.
(c) 4"x 2"lower portion back of left eye.
(d) 1x 1/2"diameter over sternal area and all over the both hips.
On Dissection
Extra vasation of blood was found in sub- cutaneous tissue in the area
mentioned in the injury No.2 Ecchymosis was found all over front of
chest on both sides. Body of sternum was fractured at the level 4th
postal cartilage. Upper ten ribs were fractured into pieces in both
sides. Heart was empty, lungs were ecchymosed and torn on the both
sides Left lungs was avulsed from its roots blood and clots were
present on both sides. Liver was ecchymosed. Stomach contained
about 20 cc of bluish fluid with no particular smell bladder was
empty. Uterus was normal other organ were pale scull brain and
meninges were normal."
Doctor found several fractures. He specifically stated that
the death was due to traumatic asphyxia as a result of hard blunt
pressing force, injuries of chest and lungs. The other injuries
were also caused by hard blunt substance. He also proved the
postmortem report, which is marked as Exhibit-3.
In cross-examination, he stated that the death was either,
instantaneously or extremely rapid within five minutes after
sustaining the injury of chest and lungs as mentioned in the post-
mortem report. He further stated that these injuries caused may
not be by the act of one person. This statement of Doctor
demolishes the prosecution case. If we believe the opinion of the
Doctor, then it is impossible for this lady, who was assaulted in
the morning to come to the house of the informant at about 06.00
in the morning and stay alive till after 05.00 in the evening. As
per the Doctor the death was instantaneous and had occurred
within five minutes from the assault. The assault had taken place
in the morning. That being so the death could not have taken
place after 05.00 in the evening. Further, the Doctor opined that it
is not possible for one person to commit the said act. It is
prosecution case that it is only this appellant who had alone
assaulted the deceased as a result of which she died.
11. The medical evidence, clearly demolishes the prosecution
story, thus, we are inclined the allow this criminal appeal.
Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal stand allowed by
acquitting the appellant, giving him benefit of doubt.
12. The judgment of judgment of conviction dated 07.11.2002
and order of sentence dated 08.11.2002 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. IV) at Dhanbad
in S.T. No.317 of 2001 is set aside.
13. As this appellant is already on bail, he and his bailors are
discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds.
14. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
15. Let the Trial Court Record be transmitted to the Court
concerned along with a copy of this judgment.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated 11/11/2024
NAFR /R.S./ Cp 03.
