Jharkhand High Court
Budhinath Murmu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.133 of 2002
------
(Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2002
and order of sentence dated 04.02.2002 passed by Learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pakur, in Sessions
Trial No.3 of 1978)
------
Budhinath Murmu, son of late Lobin Murmu, resident of Village
Chirudih, P.S. Pakuria, District Pakur. ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... Respondent
------
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
------
JUDGMENT
By Court, :
11th November, 2024
This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated
30.01.2002 and order of sentence dated 04.02.2002 passed by
Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pakur, in Sessions
Trial No.3 of 1978, whereby and wherein the appellant has been
convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. He was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302
IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years
for offence under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl. P.P. for the State and perused the material available on
record.
3. The F.I.R. is at the instance of one Lakhi Chandra
Mirdha. He alleged that the deceased Mirja Murmu was living in
the house with her cousin, uncle and aunt. On 29/30.09.1976,
the deceased became traceless for which her sister who was also
a resident of the same village had filed a missing report with the
Police Station informing the aforesaid fact. He further states in
the F.I.R. that this appellant and the others on the pretext of
searching the deceased left the house and they also went
missing. The informant further states that with the help of the
villagers, this appellant and the other accused persons were
traced out when they disclosed their guilt and they disclosed that
they had committed murder of the deceased and had thrown the
dead body in a tank. This appellant and others thereafter were
brought to the Police Station where the confessional statement
was recorded and the F.I.R. was also drawn up. On the aforesaid
fact, Pakuria P.S. Case No.3/76 was registered under Sections
302 and 201/34 IPC.
4. We have gone through the Trial Court Records, the
evidence led by the prosecution and the impugned judgment.
5. The glaring aspect in this case is that neither the
Investigating Officer nor the Doctor has been examined. The
entire case is based on the confessional statement of this
appellant which led to recovery of the dead body, thus it was
necessary to examine the Investigating Officer.
6. P.W.-3 namely Budhinath Maraiya, had stated that this
appellant has confessed his guilt before the other villagers.
P.W.-4 namely Madan Marandi also stated in the similar
line and stated that this appellant was apprehended by the
villagers and was taken to the Police Station.
P.W.-10 namely Chetan Hansda in a Court question has
stated that the accused persons have not confessed their guilt
before the villagers but they had confessed the guilt at the Police
Station.
The actual fact on this point could not be ascertained
as the Investigating Officer was not examined, as the
confessional statement has not been proved. Whether the
recovery was based on the confessional statement or not has also
not been proved in absence of examination of Investigating
Officer as a witness.
P.W.-6 namely Budhu Hembram, stated that it is this
appellant who had recovered the dead body from the pond as the
Police had brought the appellant near the pond. But this fact has
also not been corroborated as the Investigating Officer has not
been examined.
7. To bring the case within the ambit of Section 302 IPC,
the prosecution has to prove that the death is homicidal in
nature. In this case, the prosecution has also failed to prove the
same. Even if we accept the statement of the witnesses, we find
that only a skeleton was recovered from the pond. Whether the
skeleton belonged to the deceased or not has also not been
proved. Further, how the death had occurred has also not been
proved by the prosecution as the Doctor who conducted the
examination of the remains of the body has not been examined.
This creates a doubt about the nature of death of the deceased as
whether the same was homicidal or by any other cause. All these
doubts are sufficient to acquit the appellant by giving him benefit
of doubt.
8. Thus, by giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, this
Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment of
conviction dated 30.01.2002 and order of sentence dated
04.02.2002 passed by Learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Pakur, in Sessions Trial No.3 of 1978, are hereby set aside.
The appellant is acquitted of the charges. As the appellant is on
bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bonds, so are the
bailers.
9. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court
concerned.
10. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Dated:- 11/11/2024
NAFR / Prashant
