Jharkhand High Court
Kunwar Gope Son Of Sri Dibru Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 September, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 695 of 2017
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 28.01.2017 and order of
sentence dated 30.01.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 2016]
Kunwar Gope son of Sri Dibru Gope, resident of Village Tumsai, P.O. & P.S.
Manoharpur, District West Singhbhum .... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Nupur Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Special P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 26.09.2024 Pronounced On: 30.09.2024
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Sole appellant is before this Court against the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Section 302 of the IPC.
2. Informant is the brother of the deceased who was married to the
appellant ten years ago. As per the FIR, there was a history of wife abuse and
the appellant under influence of liquor used to assault the deceased. One year
before the incidence, he had broken her hand and had also inflicted tangi blow
over her head. On 13.11.2015 at about 3O'clock in the morning doused his
sister with boiling water and caused her death. On receiving the information,
when the informant came to his sister's house, he found her dead body with
marks of burn injuries.
3. On the basis of the written report Manoharpur P.S. Case No.76/15 was
registered under Sections 326 and 302 of IPC against the appellant. After
investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the appellant was put on trial for
the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
4. It is argued 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 in which the chain of circumstances has not been
proved.
5. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.
6. The appellant died a violent homicidal death, is established by the post-
mortem examination report duly proved by Doctor (P.W. 5), who found the
following ante mortem injuries: -
1. External finding:
(i) Two black colour bruise on right side of face 01" diameter.
(ii) Bleeding from nose.
(iii) One black colour bruise 02"above the right breast and 01" in
diameter.
(iv) One black colour bruise 2"x1" below the left breast.
(v) Multiple linear bruise over abdomen.
(vi) Abrasion over back 7"x 4"
(vii) Abrasion on right side of back 3" x 2"
(viii) One black colour bruise on right mid thigh 01" in diameter.
(ix) Bruise over left shoulder 3"x ½"
(x) No injury noted over perineum.
(xi) Ante mortem dermal burn of face, abdomen, thorax and back.
2. On dissection:
Head & Neck- Skull bone meninges and brain matter intact.
Thorax- Blood present in subcutaneous tissue of chest wall and sternum
body of sternum fracture 3 to 7 ribs on right side fracture blood present in
right plural cavity right lung lacerated due to fracture deep.
Abdomen- Stomach empty rest viscera within normal limit.
3. Cause of death: May be due to cumulative effect of shock on injury and
burn & haemorrhage from above mentioned injuries caused by hard and
blunt object.
4. Time since death: In between 02 to 04 days as rigor mortis absent in upper
limb and present in lower limb.
In his examination-in-chief, this witness has opined that above
mentioned injury No. (iii) to (vi) are sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature.
7. It is also not in dispute that the incidence took place within the confines
of the house and the unfortunate incidence took place on the night of
Deepawali when the devout Hindus worship Goddess Lakshmi. P.W. 1 in para
4, P.W. 2 in para 2, P.W. 3 in para 4, P.W. 7 had all consistently stated that the
incidence took place in the house of the appellant. This has been corroborated
by the Investigating Officer in para 8.
8. It has also come in the evidence of the informant that the appellant used
to assault his wife and in past also, he had broken her hand.
9. The above evidence establishes three facts. First, it was a violent
homicidal death, secondly, the death took place in the house of the appellant
and thirdly, there was history of the deceased being assaulted by the appellant.
The appellant was also present there, is evident from the testimony of P.W. 3
in para 4. All these evidences were put to the appellant and no plausible
explanation has come from his side regarding the death of his wife. It is
impossible to accept his explanation given to question no.20 that he had slept
that night and on next morning, she had died. Learned trial court has discussed
the evidence at length while returning the judgment of conviction under
Section 302 of the IPC. I do not find any infirmity which is accordingly,
affirmed.
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, 30th September, 2024
AFR/Anit
