Jharkhand High Court
Kishan Murmu @ Pargana vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 September, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1293 of 2016
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 13.05.2016 and order of sentence
dated 18.05.2016 passed by learned District and Additional Session Judge,
Ghatsila in Sessions Trial Case No. 296 of 2015)
----
Kishan Murmu @ Pargana, son of late Khela Murmu, resident of
Kaliyam, P.O. and P.S.- Dumaria, District- East Singhbhum
... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
------
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Nidhi Rani, Advocate
Mr. Biraj Agarwal, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
.........
JUDGMENT
30th September 2024
Per Ananda Sen, J.: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the State at length.
2. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of
conviction dated 13.05.2016 and order of sentence dated
18.05.2016 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 296 of 2015 whereby
and whereunder learned District and Additional Session Judge,
Ghatsila convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for life
with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and RI for five years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under
section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
evidence adduced by the prosecution has not properly been
considered. The evidence clearly suggests that the appellant is
innocent. There is no material to convict this appellant and in
absence of any of the eye-witness, the prosecution failed to
implicate the appellant. He further states that solely on the basis
of an extra judicial confessional statement of this appellant, he
has been convicted, which is bad.
4. The learned counsel for the State submits that though there
is no eye-witness but the appellant himself made an extra
judicial confession before PW1 and PW11. The said confessional
statement is an extra judicial confessional but based on the said
confession, murder weapon was also recovered. On this ground
the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The statement is credible and
is not under threat or coercion.
5. The F.I.R in this case is at the instance of PW11 who stated
that his nephew (this appellant) with his wife everyday used to
go to the jungle to cut wood and on the next day the appellant
used to go to the market to sale the same. They used to earn
livelihood by selling the firewood. On 17.05.2015 at about 3:00-
4:00 PM in the evening this appellant had left for the forest to cut
wood. At about 7:00 PM this appellant returned and told him
that in the forest while cutting wood due to some family issues
fight broke out and in the rage of sudden anger, he assaulted his
wife with the wood chopper (sharp cutting weapon to cut small
wood) on the neck, thus she died. He further confessed that
leaving the dead body he returned. The others were informed
and this appellant was kept in their custody. Thus the FIR was
registered.
6. The police after recording confession of the appellant
registered Dumaria PS Case No. 06 of 2015 under section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code against the appellant.
7. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted
chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal and the appellant
was put on trial.
8. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on
record cognizance was taken and case was committed to Court
of Session where charges were framed and trial proceeded.
9. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 11 witnesses
were examined by the prosecution, who are :-
i. PW1 :- Gopal Murmu
ii. PW2 :- Krishna Deogam
iii. PW3 :- Sankho Mardi
iv. PW4 :- Dubraj Murmu
v. PW5 :- Sakla Murmu
vi. PW6 :- Dr. Ramchandra Soren
vii. PW7 :- Ramjeet Ram Kachhap, I.O
viii. PW8:- Vikrant Kumar
ix. PW9 :- Boslo Murmu
x. PW10 :- Mohan Murmu
xi. PW11:- Kishun Murmu, informant
10. Some documents were exhibited which are :
i. Ext.1 - Signature of Gopal Murmu on the fardbeyan of
Kishun Murmu.
ii. Ext.1/1- Fardbeyan
iii. Ext.2 - Signature of Dubraj Murmu on the seizure list
iv. Ext.2/1 - Seizure list of the Katari.
v. Ext.3 - Postmortem report
vi. Ext.4 - relevant paragraph of the confessional statement of
Kishun Murmu.
vii. Ext.4/1 - Signature of Mohan Murmu on the confessional
statement.
viii. Ext.5 - Formal FIR
Katari is the material exhibit-1, which is the murder
weapon. The inquest report and the postmortem report were also
exhibited.
The doctor is PW6. He stated that he has conducted the
postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. He found open
lacerated wound of size 15 cm x 3 cm in front of neck below
hyoid bone and laceration of 3 cm x 2 cm in chin.
As per opinion of the doctor the aforesaid injuries are ante
mortem in nature caused by heavy sharp object and the time
elapsed since death is 42 to 72 hours.
11. We find that none appeared to cross examine this doctor.
From the aforesaid evidence, we hold that the prosecution has
been able to prove that the death of the deceased is homicidal.
12. Now the next question would be whether the prosecution
has been able to prove the guilt of this appellant beyond all
reasonable doubt. Admittedly in this case there is no eye-
witness, all the witnesses are hearsay witnesses. The most
important witness in this case is PW11 i.e. the informant and
PW1 who is the Gram Pradhan. PW11 is none but the uncle of
this appellant. PW1 stated that this appellant came to him and
confessed before him that he had chopped the deceased. He also
stated that they went to fetch wood from the forest where he
chopped the deceased. This witness also stated that PW11 is the
informant of this case and he is the uncle of this appellant. He
admits that he had signed as a witness to the FIR which was
marked as exhibit-1. In the cross examination nothing was
elucidated to show that the confession of this appellant was
obtained by force or coercion or under any threat. He stated that
the police recovered the dead body from the jungle.
13. PW11 had stated that this appellant is his nephew. He
stated that he had seen the dead body in the house. He further
narrated that the appellant came and said that he had murdered
his wife in jungle as there was some quarrel. Nothing is extracted
from the cross examination to disbelieve him. He stated that the
appellant did not tell him the reasons of quarrel between him
and his wife.
14. PW1 is the Gram Pradhan and PW11 is none but the uncle
of this appellant. They are person of confidence of this appellant.
There is nothing in record to suggest that there was any dispute
between them and this appellant. There is no material in the
entire evidence to suggest that under force, coercion or threat or
in a deceitful manner confession was obtained from this
appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"Sahadevan v. State of T.N." reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403 has
culled out the principles governing extra judicial confession in
paragraph no.16 which are as under:
"16. Upon a proper analysis of the above referred judgments
of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles
which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible
piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction
of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind
while dealing with the veracity of cases where the
prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession
alleged to have been made by the accused:
(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by
itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care
and caution.
(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
(iii) It should inspire confidence.
(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility
and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of
cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other
prosecution evidence.
(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of
conviction, it should not suffer from any material
discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any
other fact and in accordance with law."
15. In this case we find that all the conditions are fulfilled.
Further, we find that the police also recorded the confessional
statement of the accused and based on the confessional statement
the murder weapon i.e. wood chopper was recovered from the
house of this appellant. This recovery is in terms of section 27 of
the Indian Evidence Act. Only the statement relating to recovery
is admissible in evidence under section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act. This weapon was seized by the police and as a material
exhibit was produced before the Court also. The investigating
officer in paragraph no. 3 of his deposition stated that on
pointing out of this appellant the murder weapon was recovered.
16. As per the extra judicial confession, the appellant has
confessed that he has committed the murder of his wife in the
forest. The dead body was also recovered from the forest which
is evident from the statement made in paragraph no. 5 during
cross examination of PW1.
17. Thus analyzing the evidence, we find that the appellant
had made an extra judicial confession, the body was found in the
jungle which is in tune of the extra judicial confession. Further
after the confession before the police murder weapon was
recovered from the house of this appellant. The medical evidence
also supports the extra judicial confession wherein this appellant
has stated that he has assaulted the deceased in neck and chin.
The prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant
beyond all reasonable doubt that he has assaulted the deceased.
18. Now the question is whether the appellant can be held
guilty of committing an offence under section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code. Since we hold that the confession of this appellant is
an extra judicial confession and the same is corroborated by the
medical evidence and also the place of occurrence, we have to
accepted his statement in entirety. In his statement before PW1
and PW11 this appellant had stated that there was some
altercation between him and his wife in the forest and in sudden
rage of anger he assaulted the deceased as a result of which she
died. This clearly suggests that in a sudden quarrel and in a heat
of passion, the incident had occurred, thus this will fall within
Exception 4 of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Once we
come to the conclusion that this case will fall under Exception 4
of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant cannot be
convicted for committing an offence punishable under section
302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the facts of this case we find
that this case falls within section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal
Code. Thus, the appellant is found guilty of the offence
punishable under section 304 Part-II.
19. Since we hold the appellant is found guilty of the offence
punishable under section 304 Part-II and is in custody, so far as
sentence is concerned we sentence him to undergo imprisonment
for the period which he has already undergone. Thus the
sentence imposed by the trial Court is also modified from RI for
life to the period already undergone.
20. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed only with the
aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction dated
13.05.2016 and the order of sentence dated 18.05.2016 passed in
Sessions Trial Case No. 296 of 2015.
21. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court
Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated : 30/09/2024
Tanuj/ N.A.F.R.
