Against The Judgment Of Conviction ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10251 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Against The Judgment Of Conviction ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 October, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 514 of 2016

    [Against the judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2016 and order of
    sentence dated 27.05.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions
    Judge-II, FTC, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Case No. 349 of
    2003].

   Balram Ravidas, son of Sri Pokhan Ravidas, resident of village Nahar
   Road Sadam, P.O and P.S. Gomia, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.
                                                       ....APPELLANT
                             Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mathura Ram, son of late Bhim Ram, resident of village Marang Marcha
   under Rajrappa Project, P.O and P.S Gola, District- Hazaribagh,
   Jharkhand.                                       ...RESPONDENTS
                                 ......

     For the Appellant:    Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate.
     For the State     :   Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
                                   ......

                             PRESENT
                           SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                           SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

                             JUDGMENT

Dated: 23.10.2024 By Court:

This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2016 and order of sentence dated 27.05.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, FTC, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Case No. 349 of 2003, whereby the appellant having been found guilty of charges under Section(s) 302 and 498A of Indian Penal Code and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years under Section 498A IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined as witness, which is fatal for the prosecution. He further submits that the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem on the person of the deceased was in

Page/1 dilemma as to whether the death is homicidal or suicidal. As per him, the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 who are the interested witnesses as they clearly stated that they have not seen the occurrence. He also submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. On these grounds, he prays for acquittal of the appellant .

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposing the prayer of the appellant, submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the appellant under Sections 498A and 302 IPC by leading oral evidence and medical evidence. She further submits that non- examination of the Investigating Officer as a witness, has not prejudiced the appellant, as there is sufficient evidence otherwise against him. She also submits that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.5, who is the informant and the father of the deceased. On the aforesaid grounds, she submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court is justified and should not be interfered with.

4. The FIR is at the instance of Mathura Ram ( P.W-5), who is the father of the deceased. He stated that this appellant was married 4-5 years ago with his daughter and this appellant was demanding motorcycle and some money. Thereafter, he received information that his daughter died.

On the basis of aforesaid report, Gomia P.S. Case No. 45 of 2002 was registered for the offence under Sections 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. Thereafter the cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, charge was framed under Sections 304-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was put on trial.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined six witnesses, who are as follows:-

          P.W.1-     Prayag Ravidas,
          P.W.2-     Saryu Ravidas,
                           Page/2
           P.W.3-      Nand Kishor Ravidas
          P.W.4-      Rajendra Kumar Paswan,
          P.W.5-      Mathura Ram (the informant), and
          P.W.6-      Dr. Prabhu Narayan Jha.

6. Some documents were also exhibited in this case, which are as follows:-

Ext.1- Signature of Mathura Ram on written petition, and Ext.2- Postmortem report.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

8. The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant for committing the offence under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

9. From the evidence, led by the prosecution, we find that the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 3 are of no relevance as they have stated nothing about the occurrence nor about the nature of relationship of the deceased with this appellant. They only stated that they came to know about the death of the deceased and are unaware how the death had occurred.

10. The important witness is Mathura Ram (P.W.5), who is the father of the deceased and the informant of this case. He stated that he is the author of the FIR and the marriage of this appellant was solemnized with the deceased 4 to 5 years prior to the death of the deceased. The death had taken place in the year 2002. It is stated that after the marriage, the deceased was residing in her matrimonial home and she was treated properly for one and half years, thereafter, a demand of motorcycle was being raised. The demand was made to the deceased and the deceased informed him. It is stated that occasionally, the deceased was also assaulted. In paragraph-4, the informant stated the deceased made last complaint about the demand and torture to him two years before the death when she came to his house. Thereafter, she did not come to his house till her death.

11. P.W.6 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased. His testimony is most important. He found the following external injury on the person of the deceased.

Page/3

(i) Lacerated injuries in a size of ¾" x1/2" x skin deep over chin.

(ii) Bruise- blackish in colour in a size of 7" x1" round the neck except back portion of the neck. Blackish haematoma in a size of 1½" x 1" below left eye.

On Dissection:

Skull- NAD, Sub-cutaneous haemorrhage underneath the bruise on neck. Fracture of tracheal ring was present. Subcutaneous tissue- damaged with haemorrhage below the left eye underneath the haematoma. Chest and lungs- congested. Heart- full of blood. Abdomen -semi digested food present. Liver-congested. Spleen and kidney- NAD. Urinary bladder- empty. Uterus- NAD. Orifices- NAD.

12. The doctor opined that the cause of death was Asphyxia due to above injury over the neck and possibility of death being strangulation may not be ruled out. But in cross-examination, he also stated that possibility of suicide by hanging may not be ruled out. This evidence clearly suggests that the doctor is in dilemma as to whether the death is homicidal or suicidal.

13. When the prosecution itself is in dilemma about the cause of death, which was either suicide or homicide then it will not be proper to convict the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Be it noted that this is not a case under Section 304-B IPC, as admittedly from the evidence there is nothing to suggest that soon before the death, there was demand of dowry and torture.

14. In a case under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. In this case the very aspect that the death was homicidal or not is doubtful, which is evident from the testimony of the doctor. To bring home the charge under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the death is homicidal, which is not proved in this case. In that view, by giving benefit of doubt, we are inclined to acquit this appellant from the charge under Section 302 IPC.

15. Further, we find that the appellant was also convicted under Section 498A IPC. From the evidence of the prosecution witness, especially P.W.5, we find that there is evidence of torture and assault upon the deceased by this appellant for a motorcycle, thus we

Page/4 conclude that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant under Section 498A IPC. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A is upheld. The impugned judgment of conviction is thus modified accordingly.

16. So far as sentence is concerned, as the appellant has already served the sentence imposed upon him under Section 498A IPC, this Court directs the appellant to be released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case.

17. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.

18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.

Dated: the 23rd October, 2024.

NAFR/Anu/Cp.-3.

Page/5