Jharkhand High Court
Pyari Paswan @ Piyari Pashwan Aged About ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1713 of 2023
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 29.06.2016 and order of sentence
dated 02.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa in
Sessions Trial No. 292 of 2012]
Pyari Paswan @ Piyari Pashwan aged about 30 years son of Gati Paswan,
resident of Village Parshukhad, P.O. & P.S. Chiniya, District Garhwa
(Jharkhand) .... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant: Mr. Razaullah Ansari, 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 before this Court against the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed in S.T. Case No.292 of 2012 under Section 302 of the IPC.
2. Appellant is the husband of the deceased and as per the FIR, the deceased
was living in her Maike in Village Bhandara, District Garhwa with her two sons,
whereas appellant was working in Kanpur. On 15.04.2012, appellant came and
took her with him from Village Parshukhad in District Garhwa which was the
parental home of the deceased. Instead of taking her to matrimonial home, he
proceeded along with her to Daltonganj to take her to Kanpur. There was a Band
call given by Naxal outfit and so they could not catch the train. The deceased
was not inclined to go to Kanpur and therefore on 16.04.2012 appellant took
deceased to his sister's house at Kalyanpur.
3. Deceased informed the informant, that appellant was forcibly taking the
deceased to Kanpur. On this information, when they reached there, an
altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased. In the meantime,
appellant inflicted Tangi blow at the neck of the deceased resulting in her
instantaneous death. He was apprehended on spot while trying to escape from
the place of occurrence.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Garhwal P.S. CaseNO.113/12 of registered
under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant. Police on investigation,
found the case true and submitted charge sheet. Appellant was put on trial for
the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
5. Prosecution examined altogether eleven witnesses and adduced into
evidence relevant documents which have been marked as Exhibit 1 - 5. The
Tangi which was seized, has also been produced and marked as Material Exhibit
No.1.
6. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that no
independent witness has been examined to prove the prosecution case. Out of
the elven witnesses examines, P.W. 9 is the I.O. and P.W. 10 is the Doctor. P.W.
1 is not the eye witness. P.W. 2 is also not a direct eye witness, but a hearsay
witness. P.W. 3- Kaushlya Kuer, who is the sister of the appellant, and in whose
house, the incident took place, has also not supported the prosecution case and
has deposed that at the relevant time, she had gone out for some work. P.Ws. 4,
5, 6, 7 and 8 are also not direct eye witness. The prosecution case rests on the
solitary account of informant (P.W. 11) whose testimony suffers from vital
contradiction.
7. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.
8. Deceased died a homicidal death, is proved by the Doctor (P.W. 10), who
has proved the post mortem examination report (Exhibit 5). Death was due to
shock and hemorrhage of injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon. Testimony
of the eye witnesses is corroborated by the post mortem examination report. The
following external injuries were found: -
I. Incised wound 1 ¼ " x ½ " on right side of neck below ear muscle deep.
II. Incised wound 8 " x 1" x bone deep on posterior aspect of upper part of
neck upto cervical bone.
III. Incised wound 2 ½" x 1 ¼" x bone deep and base of posterior aspect of
neck.
9. There is consistent account of the witnesses that place of occurrence is in
Village Dharmdiha, Kalyanpur which was the house of the sister of the
appellant. P.W. 11 is the direct eye witness and the informant of the case.
Appellant was drunkard and therefore, the deceased was not ready to go with
him to Kanpur. He used to assault her. It has been deposed by him that his sister
had been left in the parental home for last eight months and only on assurance
that she will not be assaulted, he was permitted to take her. When they could
not take the train for Kanpur, they went to village Dharamdih, the house of his
sister. Informant was called there by the deceased as she did not want to go with
him to Kanpur. Informant had a tiff with the appellant when as per wishes of
the deceased he wanted to take her back home. He had called a vehicle on hire
and the moment he went out to lead the driver to the house, appellant taking
advantage of his momentary absence, hacked his wife to death. Other witnesses
have testified to the presence of the deceased in the house shortly before and
after the incidence which will be relevant under Sections 6 and 8 of the Evidence
Act. Appellant was apprehended on spot and handed to the police. PW-4 has
deposed that when he arrived at the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body
of the deceased lying there and Pyari Paswan had been detained by the villagers,
who was taken by the police. P.W.-9, the I.O. who has deposed that when he
arrived at the place of occurrence, he found the dead body there. The weapon
of offence was seized and the appellant was arrested who had been caught by
the villagers.
10. In the light of these evidence, we do not find force in the argument
advanced on behalf of the appellant that incidence took place on the spur of
moment and that the case will not come within Section 302 of the IPC. In order
to bring a case within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, the appellant
should not have acted in a cruel or unusual manner. It has come in evidence that
the appellant was an alcoholic and therefore, the deceased did not want to go
with him to Kanpur. There was past history of wife abuse. Deceased was not
inclined to go with the appellant, and on this minor issue, he acted in a most
cruel manner and hacked her to death.
Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below
is 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.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 5th September, 2024
AFR/Anit
