Jharkhand High Court
Mangal Singh Bobonga Aged About 25 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1090 of 2018
[Arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated
31.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with G.R. No.05 of 2016 arising out
of Jagganathpur P.S. Case No.52 of 2015]
Mangal Singh Bobonga aged about 25 years, son of Soma Bobonga, resident
of Village Kalaiya Tola (Prausai), P.O. Dauguaposi, P.S. Jagganathpur, District
Singhbhum West .... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant: Mr. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Dated 17th October, 2024
By Court Since we are already hearing the main Criminal Appeal, I.A. No.7423 of
2023 is dismissed as infructuous.
Heard the parties.
Sole appellant is before this Court in appeal against the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed under Sections 302/201 of the IPC.
2. Informant is the father of the deceased. The informant was working as a
Gang Man at Padapahad Railway Station and was living in his Government
Quarter with his second wife. As per the FIR, on 30.09.2015 at 4O'clock he
received information on his mobile regarding some un-pleasant happening in
the village and he rushed there. Deceased was the daughter from the first wife
with whom she was living in the village. His first wife had run away from the
house on 29.09.2015 and the deceased was alone in the house. When he went
there, he saw that her dead body was hanging with a rope. Deceased had
apparently committed suicide. Informant apprehended that she had been
ravished by some miscreants as a result, she committed suicide.
3. On the basis of fardbeyan, Jagganathpur P.S. Case No.52 of 2015 was
registered under Sections 302, 120B, 201/34 of the IPC against unknown.
4. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against four named
accused persons under Sections 302, 201, 120B/34 of the IPC and under
Sections 4/8 of the POCSO Act. All the four accused persons were put on trial
under these Sections. Learned trial Court convicted the appellant and acquitted
rest of the accused persons facing trial.
5. Altogether seven witnesses were examined and the relevant documents
including the written report and post mortem report have been adduced into
evidence and marked as exhibit.
6. Central question that has been raised in the instant appeal is can a person
be convicted under Section 302 of the IPC, when the medical evidence is of
suicidal death?
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there
is no direct eye witness to the incidence, and the case is based on circumstantial
evidence.
8. It is further submitted that the very first ingredient to prove the charge
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is that the death should be homicidal
in nature which has not been proved in view of the post-mortem examination
report.
9. Learned A.P.P has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.
10. We find much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove the
fundamental ingredients for the charge under Section 302 of the IPC that is
homicidal death of the deceased. The post-mortem examination report is
unequivocal and emphatic that the death was due to asphyxia caused by
hanging. P.W. 7- Investigating Officer has also stated that in para 2 that the dead
body was hanging when the police party arrived at the place of occurrence. The
dead body was brought down and inquest report was made. This is corroborated
by the FIR wherein the father of the deceased has stated that when he arrived at
the place of occurrence, he found the dead body to be hanging. In view of the
post-mortem examination report that death was caused by Asphyxia due to
hanging, there can be little doubt that it was a case of suicidal death and not of
homicidal.
11. Neither the charge under Section 306 of the IPC has been framed nor the
accused has faced any trial for abetting the suicide of the deceased. In the
absence of any direct evidence of homicidal death, we are of the view that the
judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC is not
sustainable considering the post-mortem examination report which attributes
cause of death to be hanging.
The judgment of conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) is allowed.
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
Let the Trial Court Records 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, 17th October, 2024
AFR/Anit
