Rautu Sirka vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 8792 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Rautu Sirka vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 September, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr. Appeal (DB) No.414 of 2018

 (Against the Judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2017 and order of sentence dated
25.11.2017, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge II, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in
Sessions Trial No.194 of 2013 [arising out of Jeteya P.S. Case No.10 of 2012
corresponding to G.R. No.602 of 2012].

         Rautu Sirka, S/o Late Priti Sirka, R/o Village- Jhor Tola, P.O. + P.S. Jeteya,
         Distrirct- West Singhbum, Chaibasa. ....                       Appellant
                                     Versus
         The State of Jharkhand.                  .....                 Respondent
                                       PRESENT
           SRI JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
           SRI JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                             .....

         For the Appellant           :      Ms. Amrita Banerjee, Advocate
         For the State               :      Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP
                                             .....

By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2017 and order of sentence dated 25.11.2017, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge II, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.194 of 2013 [arising out of Jeteya P.S. Case No.10 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.602 of 2012, whereby and whereunder appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default, further to undergo RI for one year.

2. The FIR is at the instance of son of the appellant (P.W.6) who stated that his mother had been murdered by his father by cutting her throat by Tangi (Axe) due to non-cooking of food by her. This incidence was witnessed by the informant's wife (Mugli Kui) who happens to be daughter in law of the accused and deceased. At about 5 O' clock in the evening, when the informant was returning from Kotgarh market, his wife met him in the way and told him about the incident. But as it was night, the informant could not tell about the incidence to anyone. The informant informed about the incidence to the Village Munda and Village Dakua in the morning upon which both of them came to the informant's house and inquired about the matter and they caught the accused also. Thereafter the above-named accused confessed his guilt before the Village Munda and Dakua and admitted that he has committed murder of his wife (informant's mother).

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the Police instituted First Information Report being Jeteya P.S. Case No.10 of 2012 under Section 302 IPC.

4. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC and cognizance was taken as well as charge was framed.

5. In order to prove the case, altogether ten witnesses have been examined by the prosecution who are P.W.1 to P.W.10 and seven documents have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits.

6. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the circumstances which surfaced against him during examination.

7. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the argument of the appellant and after going through the records, convicted the appellant for committing the offence under Section 302 IPC.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no eye-witness to the said occurrence though the wife of the informant stated that she has seen the occurrence, but while deposing as P.W.7, she categorically stated that she had not seen the occurrence. There is no other witness who could suggest that the appellant has committed murder of the deceased. The informant is also not an eyewitness to the occurrence.

9. She further submits that all the witnesses are hearsay witnesses. The murder weapon was recovered and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, but there is no conclusive proof that the blood stains on it is that of the deceased.

10. She further states that the Investigating Officer in Paras-10 & 11 has stated about the recovery of murder weapon, but if those paras read properly, one can understand that two weapons were recovered. But, it is not the case of the prosecution that two weapons were used in the alleged commission of crime which makes the entire case of the prosecution to be doubtful.

11. Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. He has submitted that the deceased is none other than the wife of this appellant and the entire incident had occurred within the four corners of the house of this appellant. Admittedly, the son/informant was not present in the house and the P.W. 7 became hostile though in the F.I.R. the informant stated that his wife had seen the occurrence. There was no other person in the house save and except this appellant. The death was homicidal in nature which has been established by the prosecution and thus, it is the appellant who has

explained as to how the deceased had died. It is her contention that in this case without applying the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. Admittedly, P.W.6 who being the informant of the case is not an eye witness, he in his evidence has stated that his wife has informed him about the murder. He further stated that it was evening when he returned after marketing and he informed the village Munda on the next day and Munda informed the police. Thereafter the police came and sent the dead-body for post-mortem examination. From his evidence, it is clear that he is not an eye witness to the occurrence as he has received information from his wife. His wife is P.W. 7 and she stated that her father-in-law has committed murder of her mother-in- law, but she does not know as to how she died. She stated that she had seen the dead body of the deceased and mark of injury on the neck. He stated that she has not stated the fact that her father-in-law had committed the murder of her mother-in-law to her husband. She stated that both she (wife) and husband were not in the house. Thus, she was declared hostile and she denied the suggestion.

13. The fact that this witness is not narrating the correct picture is established from the evidence of P.W. 7 who has stated that both i.e. she and her husband were not in the house, whereas, this fact has not been narrated by the informant who states that he alone was returning from the market. P.W.1 is the village Dakuwa, who stated that S.P.O., Rupel Gope had informed him about the death of the wife of appellant. He went there with the Police and saw the dead body. He stated that he has heard the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased. He stated that he has put his signature in the confessional statement of the accused and also put his signature in the fardbeyan. This suggests that fardbeyan was recorded in his presence. The other witnesses on the facts i.e. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 only stated that they had seen the dead body but could not say as to who has committed the murder. They stated that they have heard that the appellant has committed the murder of the deceased. The doctor (P.W. 9), who has conducted the post-mortem examination on the person of deceased and found the following external injuries :-

(a) External Examination :-Incised cut injury right side of neck - 3"X ½"

X2" cutting skin, muscle blood vessel and nerves.

(b) Internal Examination :- Heart left empty and right empty, lung pale, spleen pale, liver pale, kidney pale, Stomach undigested food about one ounce, bladder empty.

(c) Rigor mortis in relapsing stage. Eyes closed, hands closed.

(d) Cause of death :- Hemorrhage and shock, due to above injury in neck, caused by Tangi.

(e) Time since death :- Within 48 hours. Further, this witness has identified the post-mortem report in his writing and signature (Ext.2).

14. He stated that the cause of death is due to haemorrhage and shock, as a result of the above injuries in the neck caused by Tangi and he exhibited the post- mortem report. From his evidence, we find that prosecution has been able to prove the fact that the deceased had died due to homicidal death.

15. P.W. 10 (Investigating officer) has stated that he had recorded the 'fardbeyan' and exhibited the 'fardbeyan' and signature which was marked as Ext. 1/1. Forwarding the 'fardbeyan' was also exhibited as Ext. ½. He recognised the handwriting of his colleague, Pratap Singh, which was marked as Ext.1/3 and formal F.I.R was marked as Ext. 3. The inquest report was prepared by him and the same is marked as Ext. 4. He inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of the appellant and the body was found lying on the cot. He recorded the statement of all the witnesses including the P.W. 7 and others and he stated that all of them narrated that this appellant had committed the murder of the deceased and the reason for assault is that the deceased had not prepared food for him. The informant also stated before him that he came to know that his father has killed his mother on the ground that she had not prepared food for him. He stated that on the confessional statement of the accused, the murder weapon was recovered i.e. Tangi from the bushes near his house. He stated that the accused was arrested and brought to the police station and on his confessional statement murder weapon was recovered from the forest and the same was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the report has been marked as Ext. 7.

16. Thus, from the evidence, there is no iota of doubt that the deceased died homicidal death. The post-mortem report suggests that there was injury on the neck of the deceased. As per the I.O., the appellant confessed his guilt and on the basis of his confessional statement murder weapon was recovered i.e. axe. The same axe was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of the

Forensic Science Laboratory which is Ext. 7 suggests that blood was detected in the axe and the said blood was of human being. From the evidence, we find that there is nothing on record to suggest that this appellant was not present at the place of occurrence. Admittedly, the place of occurrence where the murder was done is the house of the deceased. The murder weapon was recovered on the confessional statement of this appellant which contains blood stains. The wife of the informant [who is P.W. 7] turned hostile, but in paragraph 1 of her evidence, she has stated that it is this appellant who has committed the murder of the deceased. Though, in subsequent paragraph(s), she states that she along with her husband was not in the house. This part of the statement was disbelieved because the husband (P.W.6) [who is the informant] stated that he alone was returning from the market when this witness had narrated the story as to how his mother was murdered by this appellant. Further, we find that no plausible explanation was given by this appellant as to how the deceased had died. Admittedly, the deceased died in his house and the death is homicidal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anees Vs. State of NCT, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 757 while dealing with applicability of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act at paragraph 53 & 54 has held as follows:-

53. We should also look into the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Gulam Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 311, wherein this Court made the following observations in paragraph 24 as under :

"24.Even otherwise, in our view, this is a case where Section 106 of the Evidence Act would apply. Krishnanand Chaudhary was brutally assaulted and then a chhura- blow was given on the chest. Thus chhura-blow was given after Bijoy Chaudhary had said "he is still alive and should be killed". The appellants then carried away the body. What happened thereafter to Krishnanand Chaudhary is especially within the knowledge of the appellants. The appellants have given no explanation as to what they did after they took away the body. Krishnanand Chaudhary has not been since seen alive. In the absence of an explanation, and considering the fact that the appellants were suspecting the boy to have kidnapped and killed the child of the appellants, it was for the appellants to have explained what they did with him after they took him away. When the abductors withheld that information from the court, there is every justification for drawing the inference that they had murdered the bod. Even though Section 106 of the Evidence Act may not be intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases like the present, where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding death. The appellants by virtue of their special knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead the court to draw a different inference. We, therefore, see no substance in this submission of Mr. Mishra."

54. Cases are frequently coming before the courts where the husband, due to strained marital relations and doubt as regards the character, has gone to the extent of killing his wife. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house

and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. No member of the family, like in the case at hand, even if he is a witness of the crime would come forward to depose against another family member.

17. As such, this is also a case where there was matrimonial discord and there is allegation that appellant had committed the murder of the deceased within the four corners of the house. Thus, it was for the appellant to explain the injury and the death of the deceased under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which he has miserably failed to do so. Thus, this is additional circumstance which clearly points towards the guilty of the accused.

18. Accordingly, we do not find any material to differ with the finding of the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby affirmed.

The instant Criminal Appeal (DB) stands dismissed.

Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.

(Ananda Sen, J.)

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 04th September, 2024.

sandeep/