Vister Bans Mahli vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9583 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Vister Bans Mahli vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 September, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.819 of 2017
                                    -----
          (Against the judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2016 and order of sentence
          dated 28.06.2016 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XIII,
          Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 593 of 2014)
                                         ----
          Vister Bans Mahli, son of Sanika Bans Mahli, residence of village
          Sarjamdih, PO Bundu, PS Bundu, District Ranchi ... Appellant(s).
                                   Versus
          The State of Jharkhand                          ... Respondent(s).
                                       ------
                                     PRESENT
                               SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                      SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
                                      ------
          For the Appellant(s)     : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
          For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, Spl.PP
                                     .........
                                JUDGMENT

24th September 2024

Per Ananda Sen, J.: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and the learned counsel for the State at length.

2. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2016 and order of sentence dated 28.06.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 593 of 2014 whereby and whereunder learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XIII, Ranchi convicted the appellant under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive in this case. He submits that the informant stated that this appellant was caught hold by the villagers and handed over to the police but the investigating officer stated that he had taken this appellant in custody from C.R.P.F personnel. Further, as per the learned counsel for the appellant, PW1 who is the informant had stated that the door of the room had to be broken but in the F.I.R, he stated that after knocking the door, this appellant who was inside the room opened the door, when he found the dead bodies of the deceased and her daughter lying in the room. This discrepancy is fatal for the prosecution. He argues that though the blood which was collected from the axe was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and human blood was found but whether the said blood is of the deceased's or her daughter or not, has not been proved. In the report it has also been mentioned that the blood is of "human origin" of blood "group- B" only which is an inconclusive finding. On this ground he submits that there is no material to convict this appellant. He further submits that the finger print in the axe was not matched and proved to be that of this appellant. He submits that this appellant had taken a plea that he was not present in the house at that time, thus he needs to be acquitted.

4. The learned counsel for the State submits that the occurrence had taken place in the closed room of this appellant and once the door was opened, the dead bodies of the wife of this appellant and daughter was found there and the appellant was also found in the room with the blood stained weapon. It is immaterial as to whether the door was opened by the appellant from inside or it was broken. The fact remains that he was present in the same room with the dead bodies, with the axe thus it for the appellant to explain the circumstance, which he failed. He lastly submits that PW1 is none but the father of this appellant and there is no occasion for him to falsely depose against this appellant when admittedly there is no animosity between them.

5. The FIR is at the instance of PW1. He stated that they were sleeping in their room, when in the early hours he heard

commotion in the other room where his son (appellant), daughter-in-law (deceased) and their daughter (deceased) were sleeping. He went in front of the room and found the door locked. He knocked the door when the door was opened by this appellant. The informant then saw the wife of this appellant lying dead in a pool of blood and so was the daughter of this appellant. The appellant was standing holding an axe in his hand. He raised alarm when the villagers came and caught this appellant and thereafter police came and arrested him. Based on the aforesaid fardbeyan Bundu PS Case No. 56 of 2014 was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant.

6. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal and the appellant was put on trial.

7. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on record cognizance was taken and case was committed to Court of Session where charges were framed and trial proceeded.

8. To substantiate the prosecution case, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who are :-

i. PW1 :- Sanika Bans Mahli (informant) ii. PW2 :- Puniya Devi iii. PW3 :- Rajeshwar Mahli iv. PW4 :- Upendra Bans Mahli v. PW5 :- Dr. Jyostna Kumari vi. PW6 :- Kano Ram Honhoga vii. PW7 :- Dr. H. K. Sinha

9. Few documents such as postmortem report, memo of arrest, FSL etc. were exhibited which are :

       i.    Ext.1 - Signature on fardbeyan
      ii.    Ext.2 - Signature on seizure list

iii. Ext.3 & 3/1- Signature on memo of arrest and arrest memo

iv. Ext.4&5 - Signature on inquest report.

v. Ext.6 - proved postmortem report of Punam Kumari vi. Ext.6/1 - proved postmortem report of Sajowala Devi vii. Ext.7 - IO proved the fardbeyan and signature of Vinod Krishna on registration of FIR viii. Ext.7/1 - Formal FIR ix. Ext. 8 - Seizure list x. Ext. 9 - Death inquest report of Punam Kumari xi. Ext.9/1 - Death inquest report of Sajowala Devi xii. Ext. 10 & 10/1 - examine axe and FSL report

Axe i.e. the murder weapon was also produced as Material Exhibit-1.

10. PW5 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the deceased Punam Kumari, the daughter of the appellant and found the following injuries on her dead body:-

External injuries :

i. incised wound 4 cm x ½ cm, bone deep on left scapula. ii. 4 cm x ½ cm bone deep on mid occiput Internal injuries:

i. contusion of occipito temparo parietal, scalp ii. cut features 5 cm x ½ cm size separating tempor occipital surface.

iii. cut fracture one of third mid scapula X left lung.

The doctor has also conducted the postmortem of the deceased Sajowala Devi, who is the wife of the appellant and found the following injuries on her dead body:-

Incised wound :

i. 5 cm x 2 cm bone deep on mid part of back of left side of chest.

ii. 5 cm x 2 cm bone deep on mid part of right side of chest. iii. 3 cm x 1 cm into soft tissue deep just below it. iv. 6 cm x 2 cm bone deep on lower right neck. Internal injuries :

i. cut fracture of posterior part of chest ad cut laceration of both lung ii. cut features of 5th and 6th rib and cut laceration of lung. iii. cutting of 5th cervical vertebra.

iv. there is presence of blood and blood clot in both chest cavity.

The doctor opined that the death is caused due to heavy sharp cutting weapon and also opined that the time of death is between 6 hours to 18 hours from the time of conducting the postmortem.

11. The doctor's evidence and the postmortem report clearly proves that the death is homicidal. As per the opinion of the doctor murder weapon was sharp cutting heavy weapon which can be said to be axe. The axe was also produced before the Court which was exhibited as Material Exhibit-1.

12. So far as the involvement of this appellant is concerned, the entire case is based on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are none but the father and mother of this appellant. They stated they were sleeping in their room when they heard some commotion in the room where this appellant was sleeping with his wife and daughter. They went there and found the door bolted from inside. They had to break open the door thereafter they found that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood and so was the daughter of this appellant. This appellant was there. Their evidence is consistent. Thus the eye-witness suggests that it is only this appellant who has committed murder. Though the appellant has taken a plea in his statement under section 313 of Cr.PC that he was not present in the house but that is a vague and evasive stand of this appellant as he had not stated where he was. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 will definitely outweighing the statement given by this appellant recorded under section 313 of Cr.PC.

13. PW6 is the investigating officer who inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of the informant and the deceased. He had also inspected the room where the dead body was found.

In the room he found the dead bodies of the appellant's wife and daughter. Thus from this evidence, the place of occurrence has been proved by the prosecution which is the room in the house where the appellant was sleeping with his wife and daughter.

14. Further the occurrence had taken place within the closed door and admittedly within the four walls of the room where the appellant was sleeping with his wife and daughter. Immediately on opening the door the dead bodies were found and this appellant was also found there. Thus in the aforesaid circumstances section 106 of the Evidence Act would also be attracted. It is for this appellant to explain as to how these two persons i.e his wife and daughter died. In this case this appellant has failed to discharge the onus. This is also an incriminating circumstance against him.

15. So far as motive is concerned it is established that when there is direct evidence of murder is available, motive looses its significance. Further whether the door was opened by this appellant or it was broken, is also of least relevance, as admittedly the appellant was found inside the room along with axe and the dead bodies. The blood found in the axe, which was seized, was human blood and the axe was produced before the Court.

16. Considering all these material evidence, we find that the trial Court after properly appreciating the evidence had correctly convicted the appellant for committing murder of the deceased and sentenced the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We find no merit in this case, accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 819 of 2017 is dismissed.

17. Judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2016 and the order of sentence dated 28.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional

Judicial Commissioner-XIII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 593 of 2014 are affirmed.

18. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated : 24/09/2024 Tanuj/

N.A.F.R.