Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 September, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 131 of 2016
------
(Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.1.2016
(sentence passed on 22.1.2016) passed by Smt. Babita Prasad, learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C., Bokaro in S.T. No. 112 of 2015.
-----
Santosh Thakur, S/o Prayag Thakur, Village-Haijabatu, Tola-Hirtand, P.O.-
Mukhdumpur, P.S. Balidih, District-Bokaro.
......Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .........Respondent
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Appellant : Ms. Omiya Anusha, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
------
R. Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Ms. Omiya Anusha, learned Amicus Curiae
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence dated 19.1.2016 (sentence passed on 22.1.2016) passed by
Smt. Babita Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C., Bokaro in
S.T. No. 112 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 and 307 IPC
and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years
along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 307 IPC and in
default in payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further one
month, rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs.500/-
for the offence under section 354 IPC and in default in payment of fine to
undergo a further period of imprisonment of fifteen days and simple
imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 341 IPC. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbeyan of Munia Devi
recorded on 12.2.2015 wherein she has stated that she sustains herself by
working as a Labour. On 11.2.2015, she after doing her labour related work
was returning back to her house from village-Mukhdumpur through a
winding road in village-Hirtand when about 20-25 ft. from the railway line,
Santosh Thakur (appellant) came in front of her and on the pretext of giving
her money asked sexual favours from her. The informant objected and
asked him as to why he is resorting to such immoral proposal being a boy
from the same village at which Santosh Thakur felled the informant on the
ground and with a knife stabbed her three-four times on the left side of the
abdomen. When the informant raised an alarm, Suraj Kalindi came rushing
along with other persons and she was taken to Balidih P.S. and from there
to Jainamore Hospital from where she was referred to Bokaro General
Hospital and she is undergoing treatment in the said hospital.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Balidih P.S. Case No. 26/15 was
instituted against Santosh Thakur under sections 341, 354, 307 IPC. On
completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused
and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of
sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 112/15. Charge was framed
against the accused under section 341, 307, 354 IPC which was read over
and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support
of its case.
P.W-1-Dr. Amrendra Kumar was posted as a Medical Officer at
Bokaro General Hospital and on 11.2.2015 he had examined Munia Devi
and had found the following:-
"Punctured wound abdomen with loops of intestine coming out
of abdomen 5"x2".
He has proved the injury report, which has been marked as Ext-1.
P.W.-2-Rekha Devi has stated that the incident is of four months back
and she had come to her parents' place from her matrimonial house. It was
about 7.30 P.M. when she heard some commotion at which she came out of
the house and found some people running towards the source of
commotion. She also reached the said place and found her mother lying on
the ground and blood was coming out from her abdomen. She, on seeing
the condition of her mother, started crying and on being asked, her mother
had disclosed that Santosh Thakur has stabbed her. Her mother was taken
to the police station from where she was shifted to B.G.H. where she was
treated.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that her house is near to the
place of occurrence. No knife or other articles were recovered from the place
of occurrence. Santosh Thakur had never resorted to eve-teasing with her.
The accused Santosh Thakur had never come to her house. Prior to this
incident, Santosh Thakur had never eve-teased her mother. She was also
not abused or assaulted ever by Santosh Thakur.
P.W-3-Dr. Surendra Prasad Choudhary was posted as a Joint
Director, Medical & Health Services, Bokaro General Hospital and on
11.2.2015, Munia Devi had come to the casualty in a serious condition with
history of stab injury on her abdomen. There were multiple cut injuries about
1 cm x ½ cm at left iliac region around umbilicus and left axilla and a part of
the small intestine was peeping out of the wound. The patient was operated
under his supervision. The nature of injury was opined to be grievous caused
by sharp cutting instrument. He has proved the injury report prepared by Dr.
R.K. Mishra and which has been marked as Ext-2. The nature of injury was
such that the patient could have died.
P.W-4-Sanjay Kalindi was in his house when the incident had taken
place. Some people of the village had come to his house and informed that
Santosh Thakur has stabbed his mother. He went to the place of occurrence
and he found his mother lying on the ground and drenched in blood. Her
intestine had come out. His cousin brother Suraj Kalindi was present. Her
mother disclosed that Satish Thakur had stabbed her with a knife. She was
taken to Balidih P.S. and thereafter to Jaina More Hospital. Since his mother
was in a serious condition, she was taken to B.G.H. where after treatment
her life could be saved.
P.W-5-Sunil Kalindi has stated that the incident is of 11 to 15 at 7.30
P.M. and when he was at the field working when he heard some commotion
coming from the railway tracks. When he rushed to the said place, he saw a
crowd and found Munia Devi drenched in blood lying on the ground. Munia
Devi had disclosed that Santosh Thakur had assaulted her. She was taken
to Balidih P.S. by him, the children of Munia Devi and some villagers. On the
direction given at the police station she was taken to a Government Hospital
at Jainamore and on being referred she was shifted to BGH where she was
treated and her life was saved.
In cross-examination, he has stated that he had never witnessed the
assault with a knife. He came to know about the assailant being Santosh
Thakur on the disclosure of Munia Devi.
P.W-6-Amit Kumar Thakur was at his house at the time of the
incident and when he heard a commotion coming from the railway line he
had rushed to the place of occurrence where he found Munia Devi lying on
the ground in an injured state. Munia Devi had disclosed that she was
stabbed by Satish Thakur with a knife. Munia was taken by him and others
to Balidih P.S. and thereafter to Jainamore Hospital. He thereafter came
back home.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that when he went to the place
of occurrence, Santosh Thakur was not present.
P.W-7-Suraj Kalindi has stated that on 11.2.2015 he had gone to
Mukhdumpur to recharge his mobile. Around 7 P.M., he was returning back
to his house and near village-Hesabata near the railway line he heard a
sound of alarm of a woman and when he put on the torch of his mobile, he
found Santosh Thakur assaulting a woman with knife. Santosh Thakur on
seeing him fled away. When he went near the woman, he found her to be
his mother. When he started shouting, people assembled and his mother
was taken to Balidih P.S. on a tempo from where they were sent to
Jainamore Hospital but seeing the serious condition of his mother she was
referred to B.G.H. where, upon treatment, her life was saved. On the next
day in the morning, the police had come to the hospital and had recorded
the Fardbeyan of his mother. He has identified his signature in the
Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext-3.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that by the time he had
reached the place of occurrence, the accused had fled away. No knife could
be found at the place of occurrence.
P.W-8-Munia Devi is the informant who has stated that after
completing her job as a labour she was returning to her village at 7 P.M. and
ahead of Hesabata school near the railway line, Santosh Thakur all of a
sudden appeared and caught hold of her. He had offered money to her in
lieu of an immoral act and when she admonished him not to indulge in such
activities, he felled her on the ground and stabbed her three-four times with
a knife on her abdomen. When she raised an alarm her son Suraj Kalindi
and others had arrived and she was taken to Balidih P.S. in an auto and
thereafter to Jainamore Hospital. Due to the seriousness of her injury, she
was referred to BGH where on being treated her life was saved. On the next
day, police had come and her Fardbeyan was recorded.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that the road through which
she was coming was frequented by travelers. It was dark when the incident
had occurred. Santosh Thakur is of the same age as her elder son. She and
Santosh Thakur had a quarrel for 10-15 minutes. When she raised an alarm,
persons going on bicycle and bikes did not stop. She has deposed that it
takes about 10-15 minutes on foot to reach her house from the place of
occurrence. When she started raising a cry of alarm, her children had rushed
to her. The knife was not found at the place of occurrence as Santosh Thakur
had fled away with the knife. She does not have any previous enmity with
Santosh Thakur.
P.W-9-Rajendra Dubey was posted as an Assistant Sub Inspector of
Police at Balidih P.S. and on 12.2.2015 he had recorded the Fardbeyan of
Munia Devi. He has proved the Fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext-
4. He has proved the endorsement on the Fardbeyan, which has been
marked as Ext-5. He was entrusted with the investigation by the officer in
charge of Balidih P.S. In course of investigation, he had gone to BGH and
had recorded the restatement of Munia Devi and had also recorded the
statements of Suraj Kalindi, Rekha Devi and Sunil Kalindi. He had inspected
the place of occurrence which is at a place near a winding road at a distance
of 20 yards from the railway line in village-Hesabata Tola-Hirtand. There is
no habitat within a diameter of 200 meters. The occurrence had taken place
in a lonely spot. In course of investigation, he had recorded the statement of
Sanjay Kalindi and Amit Kumar Thakur. He had obtained the injury report
from BGH. He had on completion of investigation submitted chargesheet
against Santosh Thakur. He has proved the formal FIR, which has been
marked as Ext-6.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not recovered any
weapon from the place of occurrence. He had arrested Santosh Thakur but
no incriminating article could be recovered from his house. He had not
seized any bloodstained cloths. In the confessional statement, Santosh
Thakur had denied his involvement in the incident.
6. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
in which he has denied his involvement in the assault.
7. Ms. Amiya Anusha, learned Amicus Curiae, has submitted that no
motive has been established by the prosecution and absence of any motive
dilutes the essential composition for commission of an offence under section
307 IPC. It has further been submitted that no incriminating article including
the knife has been recovered from the appellant which further dilutes the
case of the prosecution. Even the doctors have given different versions with
respect to the injury suffered by Munia Devi. It has further been submitted
that none of the witnesses have stated about the appellant outraging the
modesty of the informant.
8. Mr. Tarun KUmar, learned A.P.P. has submitted that P.W-8 is the victim
who has categorically stated about the appellant inflicting stab wounds upon
her, which has been corroborated by the injury reports.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have
also perused the trial court records.
10. In the fardbeyan, the informant has taken the name of the appellant
who had confronted her while she was returning home in the evening and
had offered her money in lieu of sexual favours and on refusal she was
stabbed with the knife on her abdomen. As per P.W-1 and P.W-3 who are
the doctors and who have issued separate injury reports, the protruding of
the intestine from the wound appears to be a common refrain. As per the
Investigating Officer (P.W-9) the incident had taken place in a lonely spot,
there being no presence of any locality nearby. The same explains the
dearth of eye witnesses to the occurrence. Though P.W-7 has claimed to
have witnessed the assault but, in his cross-examination, he has deposed
that when he had reached the place of occurrence the appellant had already
fled away. This would further resonate from the fact that as per P.W-8, it was
dark when the incident had occurred. On dissecting the evidence of P.W-8
we find that she has specifically named the appellant as having stabbed her.
The defence has failed to elicit any contradiction from P.W-8 which would
make the prosecution case doubtful. Admittedly, there was no enmity
between the appellant and the informant and this would further validate the
assertion of P.W-8 regarding outraging of her modesty by making an
indecent offer and on objection stabbing her multiple times. The appellant is
of the same age as the eldest son of the informant and it was most an
inappropriate on his part to ask for sexual favours from her. Therefore, there
are no eye witnesses to the occurrence except P.W-8 but at the same time
we cannot lose sight of the fact that the witnesses who had appeared at the
spot on hearing a cry of alarm have consistently stated about P.W-8 naming
the appellant as the assailant. So far as the motive is concerned, the same
would not be a decisive factor when there is direct evidence on the record
in the form of the eye witness account of P.W-8. The evidence of P.W-8 is
consistent and trustworthy and therefore the learned trial court has primarily
based the conviction of the appellant relying upon the evidence of P.W-8.
11. Based on the deliberations noted above we do not find any reason to
interfere in the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence
dated 19.1.2016 (sentence passed on 22.1.2016) passed by Smt. Babita
Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C., Bokaro in S.T. No. 112
of 2015 and consequently we dismiss the appeal.
12. Pending I.As, if any, stand closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi,
Dated the 9/09/2024
Rakesh/NAFR
