Jharkhand High Court
Shatrughan Singh Son Of Late Basu Singh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 September, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1187 of 2017
[Arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated
07.09.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial
No. 449 of 2014]
Shatrughan Singh son of Late Basu Singh resident of Village Bhagarampur,
P.O. & P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanhad, Jharkhand
.... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Anup Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Atma Ram Choudhary, Advocate
Ms. Shruti, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
(Hearing through Hybrid Mode)
Reserved on: 09.09.2024 Pronounced On:12.09.2024
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. The sole appellant is before this Court against
the judgment of conviction and sentenced passed in Sessions Trial No.449 of
2014, whereby and whereunder he has been convicted under Section 302 of
the IPC.
2. Informant is the father of the deceased. As per the FIR, on 18.08.2014 at
6 O'clock in the morning, his daughter Anju Kumari aged 17 years, had gone
to Satbari Jhari to attend natural call. When after some time, his wife Sushila
Devi and aunt Munki Devi also went there to attend natural, they saw the dead
body of Anju Kumari lying in a pool of blood. It is contended that they saw
appellant fleeing from the place of occurrence. On Hulla, when the informant
reached there, they found that the deceased has been stabbed by knife on her
face and shoulder, resulting in her death.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Baliapur P.S. Case No.118 of 2014 was
registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC against the appellant. After
investigation, charge sheet was submitted and he was put on trial.
4. Altogether nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution
and relevant documents including FIR, P.M. report, seizure list and inquest
report have been adduced into evidence and marked as exhibit.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there
is no direct eye witness to the incidence and the appellant has been convicted
only on suspicion. There are contradictory statements in the testimony of
witnesses.
6. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.
7. Deceased, 17 years old girl died a homicidal death due to multiple stab
injuries, is proved by Doctor (P.W. 8). Injuries were on face, shoulder, back of
neck and chest as per the post mortem report (Exhibit 5). Doctor opined that
death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of sharp cutting and
penetrating injuries as mentioned caused by sharp cutting and pointed weapon
with both edges sharp.
8. Regarding the author of the crime, it is the consistent case of the
prosecution that it was appellant who had stabbed the girl. Sushila Devi
(mother of the deceased- P.W. 2) has deposed that she found the deceased to
be lying in a pool of blood and the appellant was standing there with knife.
The very fact that this witness has admitted in the cross examination that she
was not a direct eye witness to the actual incidence, lends credence to her
testimony. She has not attempted to project herself as direct eye witness to the
incidence and has confined herself to what she saw immediately after the
incidence. She has reiterated in para 11 of the cross examination that she had
seen appellant at the place of occurrence with knife in his hand. Anything
contrary to this, has not been deposed by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) in
the cross-examination so as to disbelieve the account of this witness. P.W. 3
who happens to the grandmother of the deceased has deposed on the similar
line. She has also deposed in para 5 that there had been earlier a dispute over
taking water from well in which the appellant had extended life threat. There
existed a dispute over taking water from well and threat was extended by the
appellant, has also come in the testimony of P.W. 4 at para 9, P.W. 5 at para 4,
P.W. 6 at para 3, P.W. 7 at para 4.
9. Investigating Officer has deposed that blood-stained shirt of the
appellant was also seized.
10. Motive of the offence is thus proved. Part of testimony of P.W. 2 and
P.W. 3, wherein they deposed that they saw appellant standing with knife near
the dead body, has remained undemolished in their cross examination. This
will be relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, as it constituted part of
the same transaction in which the deceased was stabbed to death. It will also
be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as post offence conduct of the
appellant. His blood-stained shirt and sleeper were also seized. These
evidences were put to the appellant while recording statement under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C. Defence is of innocence without any explanation. Defence
has not come-up with any alternative hypothesis or explanation for the
gruesome murder of the young girl. Genesis of the offence, has also been
established by consistent account of the witnesses. Under the circumstance, I
am of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond the shadow of
all reasonable and probable doubt.
Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court, 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.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Per Ananda Sen, J. I agree.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 12th September, 2024
AFR/Anit
