Jharkhand High Court
Tikaram Hembram Son Of Shayam Hembram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 October, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 585 of 2016
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 27.04.2016 and order of sentence dated
02.05.2016 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatshila in
Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2014]
Tikaram Hembram son of Shayam Hembram, resident of Village Kalajore, P.O. &
P.S. Chakulia, District East Singhbhum, A/d Village Baskatia, P.O. & P.S.
Dhalbhumgarh, District East Singhbhum .... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant
: Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 21.10.2024 Pronounced On: 25.10.2024
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Sole appellant is before this Court in appeal against the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Section 302 of the IPC.
2. Informant is the landlord in whose house the offence was committed. As per
the FIR, on 16.09.2013, when the informant returned home from the factory at 6 O'
clock in the evening, his wife informed that his tenant Tikaram Hembram (appellant)
has locked his wife inside the house after assaulting her. At this, when he went there,
he saw that Laxmi Hembram was lying on the ground drenched in blood. Tikaram had
fled away after the incidence. Laxmi Hembram was second wife and the first wife of
the appellant was living in her parental home. It was the second marriage of the
deceased with the appellant. Informant along with the villagers went to police station
and lodged the case.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No.53/2013 was
registered under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant. Police on investigation
submitted charge sheet and the accused was put on trial under this Section.
4. Altogether seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution
and the relevant documents including post-mortem examination report, has been
proved and marked as exhibits.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there is no
eye witness to the incidence and the case rests on circumstantial evidence and the
chain of circumstance is not complete so as to prove the charge. It is argued that five
golden principles (Panchsheel) laid down in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of
Mahahrashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, has not been followed. In Nagendra Sah Vs. State
of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725 on similar facts, situation, Hon'ble Supreme Court,
acquitted the accused.
6. Learned counsel on behalf of State has defended the judgment of conviction
and sentence. It is argued that the facts of the present case is distinguishable from the
authority relied upon on behalf of the defence. In the present case, the foundational
facts for drawing a presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, is established.
7. Homicidal death of the wife of the deceased, has been objectively established
by the Autopsy Surgeon (P.W. 1), who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body
on 17.09.2013. Post-mortem examination report has been proved and marked as
Exhibit 1. The Doctor found the following injuries: -
I. Bruise below right eye 3 cm x 2 cm.
II. Lacerated wound on left temporo parietal region 6 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm with
underline bone fracture with brain matter exposed.
III. Lacerated wound on upper part of right pinna 2 cm x 1 cm.
IV. Lacerated wound on right gluteal region 5 cm above leg spine (Axis) 5 cm x 2
cm.
V. Lacerated wound in right mid thigh 5 cm x 2 cm
VI. Lacerated wound on left side near Axis 2 cm x 2 cm.
Doctor opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by heavy
sharp weapon and death was due to hemorrhage and shock by these injuries.
8. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. Informant (P.W. 2) has
deposed that the appellant was with his wife-Laxmi Hembram in his house as tenant.
When he returned from Mill in evening at 8 O' clock, his wife informed that appellant
has killed his wife. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not heard
about any altercation between the appellant and deceased before the incidence.
P.W. 3 is also not an eye witness, but he is a witness to the inquest report
regarding the dead body which was in the house of informant. He has also proved his
signature on the seizure list of the blood- stained Katari (a type of knife) from the
place of occurrence.
P.W. 4 is the Deputy Mukhiya of the Village Panchayat. He is witness to the
seizure list of the weapon of offence, iron rod and blood-stained soil from the place
of occurrence which was in the house of the appellant. He has proved the signature of
the seizure list as well as on the inquest report.
Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) has also established the place of occurrence.
9. On the basis of the testimony of witnesses, the following facts are established:-
I. Laxmi Hembram died a homicidal death with sharp cut injuries over her body.
II. She was the second wife of the appellant and was living with him as a tenant
in the house of the informant.
III. After the incidence, the appellant fled away from the house.
IV. The blood-stained T-Shirt of the appellant was seized from the house along
with the blood-stained soil and weapon of offence which was sent for chemical
examination and as per the FSL report (Exhibit 6), human blood on all these
three material exhibits.
V. Defence is of innocence, but no specific defence has been pleaded.
10. These proved circumstances lead to the irresistible conclusion that it was the
appellant who was the author of the crime. Learned trial Court has discussed at length
the evidence on record, and I do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of
conviction and sentence.
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
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.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Ananda Sen, J. I agree.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 25th October, 2024
AFR/Anit
