Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Bhumij vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 September, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Ananda Sen, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 848 of 2016
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2016 and order of sentence
dated 30.06.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 122 of 2013]
------
Ravi Bhumij, son of Late Jitan Narayan Bhumij, resident of Village Changra,
Tola-Burudih, P.O. & P.S. Parsudih, District- East Singhbhum
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P.
------
Reserved on 04.09.2024 Pronounced on 11.09.2024
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the
Judgment of Conviction and sentence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
XI, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.122 of 2013, under
Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. As per fardebyan of the informant- Lutu Singh recorded by S.I. K.D. Jha,
Officer-in-Charge of Sundarnagar Police Station on 12.11.2012 at about 15;30
hours at village- Changira, Tola Burudih, P.S. Sundarnagar, is that his daughter
namely Dhunu Singh (the deceased) was married to the accused Ravi Bhumij
about 10 years ago. The accused wanted to enter into second marriage, which
was objected to by the deceased, for which she was assaulted by the appellant.
Informant received information in the morning on 12.01.2012, that the accused
had murdered his daughter by assaulting her with lathi and danda and hanged
the corpse with a Dhoti. On such information, the informant went to the house
of the accused and found the dead body of his daughter lying on the cot. There
were injuries on her head and back. There was a black mark on the neck of the
dead body.
3. Parental home of informant's wife- Sukurmani was in the same village
Changira and on the date of incidence i.e. on 11.11.2012, she was there.
Altercation had taken place between the deceased and the appellant in which
she was badly assaulted in the evening at 3 O' clock which was somehow
pacified by Sukurmani. Sukurmani told him that at 9 O' clock appellant had
caused her death by assaulting with lathi-danda and then had hanged the dead
body by means of a Sari. Leg of the dead body was touching the ground almost
in a sitting posture which ruled out the possibility of suicidal death.
4. On basis of the written report, a formal F.I.R bearing Parsudih
(Sundarnagar) P.S. Case No. 296/12 was registered on 12.11.2012 named
against the present accused Ravi Bhumij (appellant) for the offence u/s 302 of
the I.P.C.
5. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant,
and he was put on trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
6. In this case, prosecution has examined altogether twelve witnesses. They
are namely:
P.W. 1- Lutu Singh, informant of this case and father of the deceased.
P.W. 2- Bablu Sardar,
P.W. 3- Anjali Bhumij, younger sister of the deceased.
P.W. 4- Sukurmuni, mother of the deceased.
P.W. 5- Krishna Dut Jha,
P.W. 6- Trivan Singh,
P.W. 7- Sukra Bhadur,
P.W. 8- Sarita Singh@ Sarita,
P.W.9- Suresh Singh,
P.W.10- Dr. Akhilesh Kr. Chaudhary,
P.W.11- Krishna Dev Prasad and
P.W.12-Bhibhishan Bhumij.
Apart from this, the prosecution has proved and got exhibited the
following documents: -
Ext.-1 Signature of Lutu Singh(informant) on fardbeyan.
Ext.-1/1 Endorsement on fardbeyan for registration of F.I.R.
Ext.-2 Signature of Bablu Sardar or seizure list dt. 12.11.2012.
Ext.-2/1 Seizure list dt.12.11.2012
Ext.-3 Formal F.I.R.
Ext.-4 Confessional statement of Ravi Bhumij
Ext.-5 Seizure list dated 12.11.2012
Ext.-5/1 Signature of Sukurmuni on seizure list
Ext.-6 Arrest Memo of Ravi Bhumij (with objection).
Ext.-7 Signature of Dr. Akhilesh Kr. Chaudhary on the postmortem
report.
The prosecution has also produced the case property i.e. Danda and
Dhoti, which were allegedly used in the offence and the same has been marked
as Material Exhibit- I and Material Exhibit-II respectively.
7. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C on 02.06.2016 wherein the accused
has denied the entire evidence of the prosecution. The plea of defence is of
innocence, no specific defence has been pleaded.
8. Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that
P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W. 4 and P.W.-7 have not supported the prosecution case and
have been declared hostile. P.W.-6 was also not an eye witness to the incidence.
Further there were vital contradiction in the testimony of witnesses.
9. Learned Counsel on behalf of the State has defended the Judgment of
conviction and sentence.
10. Homicidal death of the deceased is objectively established by the post-
mortem examination report (Exhibit 7), proved by the Doctor (P.W. 10). Doctor
inter alia noted two linear abrasions along with superior surface right shoulder
1 cm x ¼ cm x skin deep, lacerated wound along right temporal scalp region.
Soft tissues under skin, right temporal scalp region were contused and along
base of brain, there was mild contusion. Death was due to ante mortem hanging.
The post mortem examination report establishes head injuries. With regard to
the injuries, Doctor opined that it was caused by hard and blunt substance. The
defence declined to cross examine and therefore, the homicidal death of the
deceased remains uncontroverted.
11. Place of occurrence has been consistently stated in the FIR as well as by
the witnesses to be in the house of the appellant. P.W. 5 is the Investigating
Officer. He has deposed that after receiving the information, went to the place
of occurrence which was situated in the matrimonial home of the deceased and
the dead body was lying on the cot there. On the disclosure statement made by
the appellant, weapon of offence which was a Danda, was seized. He has proved
the disclosure statement marked as Exhibit 4 and the seizure list.
12. There is no direct eye witness to the incidence, but P.W. 1 (informant) has
deposed regarding history of domestic abuse in which deceased used to be
assaulted by the appellant. The cause for this was that appellant wanted to
perform second marriage which was opposed by the deceased. Other witness
namely P.W. 3 who is the sister of the deceased, P.W. 4 her mother, have not
supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. P.W. 6 an independent
witness, has corroborated the testimony of informant that altercation had taken
place between the deceased and appellant. This part has also been supported by
P.W. 9.
13. What can be safely concluded from these evidences, is that homicidal
death of the deceased took place in her matrimonial home when the appellant
was present there. There was history of past domestic abuse. The weapon of
offence was recovered on the disclosure statement made by the appellant. There
is no explanation whatsoever regarding the incriminating circumstances which
was put to the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. Once
the foundational facts namely homicidal death in the house, in presence of
appellant is proved, it was incumbent on the appellant to offer some explanation
to the said death in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Defense has
miserably failed to offer any explanation from which the only inference that can
be drawn is that the appellant had assaulted and then hanged the dead body to
give it a picture of suicidal death.
I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence
under Section 302 of the IPC 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.)
Per Ananda Sen, J. I agree.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 11th September, 2024
AFR/Anit
