Jharkhand High Court
Jujhar Tudu @ Khera Son Of Late Bhogan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 746 of 2016
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 01.06.2016 and order of sentence
dated 06.06.2016 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge,
Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No. 294 of 2015]
Jujhar Tudu @ Khera son of Late Bhogan Tudu, resident of Kundaluka Tola
Rohindih, P.O. and P.S. Dumaria, District Singhbhum (East)
.... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Special P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
By Court The sole appellant is before this Court in appeal against the judgment of
conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC.
2. Informant of the case is the brother of the appellant. As per the fardbeyan,
on 23.02.2015, his younger brother Jujhar Tudu (appellant) returned home at
9.30 in the night heavily drunk. Thereafter, he slept in the adjoining room. Next
morning, he left home stating that he had hacked his wife to death. Informant
found the wife of the appellant lying on the ground in a pool of blood. Motive
of the offence has been stated that appellant was in the habit of taking drink
which was opposed by the deceased leading to altercation between the appellant
and the deceased. Appellant suspected illicit relationship of the deceased with
someone else.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Dumaria P.S. Case No.2/2015 was
registered under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant. Police on
investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet against the
appellant, who was put on trial for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
4. Prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses and relevant
documents which include FIR, post-mortem examination report and inquest
report, have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1 - 5. Weapon
of offence i.e. axe was produced as material Exhibit 1.
5. Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that
there is no direct eye witness to the incidence. Learned trial Court has relied on
extra judicial confession of the appellant which is a very weak piece of
evidence.
6. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.
7. There is no delay in lodging the FIR. The incidence took place in the
intervening night of 23/24.02.2015 and the FIR has been lodged on 24.02.2015
against the appellant, who happens to be the husband of deceased. Deceased
died a homicidal death, is beyond any shade of doubt which has been
established by the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit 3). Autopsy
Surgeon (P.W. 3) found the following ante mortem injuries: -
i. Sharp cutting injury posterior to left ear length 3 cm x width 1/2 cm.
ii. Sharp cutting injury 5 cm in length on left ear.
iii. Sharp cutting injury 9 cm x 3 cm with fracture of cervical vertebra.
iv. Sharp cutting injury on neck 7 cm x 2 cm.
In the opinion of Doctor, cause of death is due to hemorrhage and shock.
In his cross- examination, he opined that injury was caused by Bhujali and
sword.
8. Informant (P.W. 4) has deposed that appellant was his brother. It has been
stated by him that he had seen the dead body of the appellant's wife in the house
of the appellant with sharp cut injury over her neck. The appellant had gone to
the house of the Village Pradhan (P.W. 2) and he had also gone there. He
confessed before the Pradhan that he had committed the murder of his wife with
Tangi.
P.W. 2 has deposed that the appellant had come to him and informed that
he had committed murder of his wife, thereafter, he fled away. Police was
informed and the Tangi was seized from the place of occurrence.
9. On the basis of the testimony of witnesses, the following incriminating
circumstance is established against the appellant: -
I. Deceased, the wife of the appellant died a homicidal death in her house.
II. Informant (P.W. 4) who is the brother the appellant, has testified that the
dead body of the deceased was found in the house with sharp cut injury
over her neck. Other witnesses P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 have also testified that
the dead body was found in the house which has been corroborated by
Investigating Officer (P.W. 8).
III. Blood-stained Tangi was also seized from the house as deposed by the
Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) in para 2. The seizure list and the inquest
report corroborate the testimony of witnesses regarding the place of
occurrence to be the house of the appellant.
IV. Appellant made extra judicial confession before the Village Headman
(P.W. 2).
10. On combined reading of the testimony of prosecution evidence, it is
established that the deceased was murdered in cold blood by Tangi in her own
house. Appellant being the husband, has offered no explanation or put up any
plausible defence version with regard to the homicidal death of his wife. It was
incumbent on the part of the appellant to explain as to how his wife met her
death in a such gruesome manner within the fore-corners of the house. In the
absence of any defence plea, the irresistible inference can be drawn that it was
the appellant, who was the author of crime. This is further corroborated by the
extra judicial confession made to the Village Headman (P.W. 2) . There is no
reason whatsoever to disbelieve the account of P.W. 2 and PW-4 that appellant
had made extra-judicial confession.
Under the circumstance and for the reasons discussed above, we do not
find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned trial Court.
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.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 14th October, 2024
AFR/Anit
