Jharkhand High Court
(Against The Judgment Of Conviction ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1035 of 2018
------
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 22.06.2018 and
order of sentence dated 27.06.2018 passed by learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in S.T. No.226 of
2015).
.........
Umesh Bedia, s/o Late Niraj Bedia, r/o Village Jawabeda, PO &
P.S. Ormanjhi, Dist- Ranchi ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
.........
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Akhouri Awinash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Public Prosecutor
: Ms. Sharda Kumari, AC to PP
-----------
PRESENT
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
JUDGMENT
11/ 17.10.2024
By Court:
Since this criminal appeal has been taken up for final
hearing, this interlocutory application, filed for suspending the
sentence and to release the appellant, namely, Umesh Bedia on
bail, is dismissed.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1035 of 2018
1. This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment
of conviction dated 22.06.2018 and order of sentence dated
27.06.2018 passed by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in ST Case No. 226 of 2015, whereby
the sole appellant was convicted under sections 302/ 504/ 506
of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo R.I for life under Section
302 of IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-, to undergo S.I. for one year
under Section 504 IPC and to undergo S.I. for two years under
Section 506 of IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
2. The informant is the father of the deceased and the
appellant is the husband of the deceased. As per the informant,
the appellant was married to the deceased 20 years ago and he
used to assault the deceased quite often. On 13.02.2015, he
received an information that his daughter had been done to
death, on receipt of this information, when he went to her
house, he found the appellant in the house near the dead body.
On the basis of fardbeyan Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2015 was
registered under Sections 302, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The
police after investigation found the case true and submitted
charge sheet against the appellant for the offences under
Sections 302, 504 and 506 of the IPC. After taking cognizance,
case was committed for Sessions Court from where, this case
was transferred to the Court of Additional Judicial
Commissioner-VI, Ranchi. Charges have been framed against
the accused Umesh Bedia under Sections 302, 504 and 506 IPC
which were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which
he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. Altogether 08 witnesses were examined, who are as
follows:-
(i) P.W.1 - Dinesh Bedia
(ii) P.W.2- Deo Kr. Bedia
(iii) P.W.3- Panwa Bedia
(iv) P.W.4- Balra Kr. Bedia
(v) P.W.5- Sheela Devi
(vi) P.W.6- Sunil Bedia
(vii) P.W.7- Sati Lal Bedia
(viii) P.W.8- Ashok Kumar
4. Several relevant documents including post-mortem
examination report was proved. Postmortem report was
marked as Exhibit-2.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that there is no direct or circumstantial
evidence to bring home the charge against the appellant. The
Doctor has not been examined to establish that the injuries
sustained by the deceased, were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. The entire case rests on the
testimony of the informant who only stated that when he went
there, he found appellant to be sitting in the house next to the
dead body.
6. Learned Counsel for the State defended the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence. It is submitted that there
was past history of marital discord and the appellant used to
assault the deceased. Informant has died and son of the
deceased has deposed that his mother used to take wine and
did not cook food which led to marital discord and altercation
as in the postmortem examination report there was a specific
reference to the injuries sustained by the deceased. Thus, the
onus will shift in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act on
the appellant to explain the homicidal death of his wife. They
also submit that contusions were found on different parts of
the body.
7. Law is settled that before invoking Section 106 of the
Evidence Act, the prosecution is required to prove the
foundational facts. Only by invoking Section 106 of Evidence
Act, an accused cannot be convicted. If a logical conclusion can
be drawn from the proved facts, then only accused is under
obligation to explain as to how the person died.
It is not in dispute that appellant was the husband and
they were sharing the same domestic household. From the
Post-mortem Examination Report, it is evident that the
deceased died a homicidal death. The appellant was also
present there as deposed by the informant. The informant
could not be examined as he had died but this fact is proved
by the son of the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant has
taken a plea of alibi, but no evidence has been led that he was
not at his home and was working somewhere else. Thus, the
foundational fact for invoking section 106 of the Evidence Act
is made out. It is only this appellant who could have
accomplished the act and none else. In the absence of any
explanation coming from the appellant regarding the cause of
homicidal death of the deceased, the only irrebuttable
conclusion that will follow is that it was the appellant who
was the author of the crime.
8. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that in the absence
of examination of the doctor and there being no injury on the
vital part of the body it cannot be inferred that injuries
sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary
course of action to cause death. The injuries as appearing from
the post-mortem report are as follows:-
Abrasion :-
(1) 3 cm x ½ cm left arm lateral side upper part.
(2) 3 cm x 1 cm, 1 cm x ½ cm back of left forearm upper part.
(3) 3 cm x ½ cm left chest lateral side lower part.
(4) 2 cm x ½ cm left leg middle part.
(5) 4 cm x 2 cm, 3 cm x ½ cm right gluteal region lateral side.
Lacerated wound:-
(1) 3 cm x ½ cm x soft tissue back of right palm.
(2) 2 cm x ½ cm soft tissue front of right leg, middle part.
(3) 4 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue right side of pubic area.
Diffuse contusion area:-
(1) Both upper limb, back of both arm both thigh, both leg upper part, back of
chest, lower part, back of abdomen, both gluteal region.
From a bare reading of the injuries it is apparent that
most of the injuries are abrasions and the lacerated wounds
were found on right palm, front of right leg and soft tissue on
the right side of the weak area which cannot be called a vital
part of the body. There is no fracture found on any part of the
body nor was there any incised wound. It is however, come in
evidence that a spear was also there in that room but it
appears that it was not used in the offence as no perforated
wound was found on the body of the deceased.
9. Considering these evidences, we are of the view that the
offence under Section 302 of the IPC is not made out and the
ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased will make out
an offence under Section 304 Part-II. Thus, the conviction of
the appellant is hereby modified to section 304 Part II of IPC.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant has already served sentence for more than nine
years.
11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
considering the age and antecedent and overall facts and
circumstances the sentence of imprisonment for the period
already undergone shall meet the ends of justice.
12. The criminal appeal is partly allowed with modification
of finding and sentence. The appellant be released forthwith,
if not wanted in any other case.
13. The Trial Court Records to be transmitted back to the
Court concerned below.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated 17/10/2024
NAFR /Prashant./Abha Cp 03.
