Jharkhand High Court
Gauri Shankar Ghansi Aged 38 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 September, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 525 of 2018
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 24.02.2018 and order of sentence
dated 28.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ramgarh
in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2016]
Gauri Shankar Ghansi aged 38 years, resident of Village Saunda D, P.S.
Patratu (Bhurkunda), P.O. Patratu, District Ramgarh
.... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant: Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
By Court Sole appellant is before this Court in appeal against the judgment of
conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC. Informant is the mother
of the deceased, who was married to the appellant in 1999 two years before the
incidence.
2. As per FIR, she used to be assaulted by the appellant and in-laws and at
times, the matter was settled by their intervention. On 07.06.2015 at 1 O'clock
in the night, the informant received telephonic information that her daughter
had died in accidental fall. When she went there, she found her lying dead.
Informant suspected that she had been bitten up resulting in her death. On the
basis of the written report, Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No.127/15 was
registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC against the appellant, his brother and
mother. Police on investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant
who was put on trial for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
3. Altogether six witnesses were examined and the relevant documents
including the written report and post mortem report have been adduced into
evidence and marked as exhibit.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there
is no direct eye witness and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The
chain of circumstance is not complete to establish that it was the appellant and
none else who was responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased.
5. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.
6. The post mortem examination report (Exhibit 4) leaves not a shred of
doubt regarding the homicidal death of the deceased. Doctor (P.W 6) noted four
ante mortem injuries on the dead body which included fracture of ribs, both on
the right and left side and also contusion over both sides. Doctor opined that
death was due to fracture of ribs.
7. There is no direct eye witness to the incidence, but it has come in the
testimony of the witnesses that the appellant used to assault the deceased.
P.W. 1 is the husband of the younger sister of the deceased. He has
deposed that there used to be quarrel between deceased and the appellant.
P.W. 3 is the sister of the deceased, she has also deposed that appellant
used to assault his wife after taking liquor. She has also deposed that she died in
her matrimonial home.
P.W. 5 has also deposed that when on receipt of information when she
went to the house of the deceased, found her dead body with marks of injury.
Investigating Officer (P.W. 2) has given the place of occurrence in para
5 to be situated in the house of the decased.
The informant who happens to be the mother of the deceased (P.W. 4), it
has been deposed by her that she was kept properly for a year. Appellant was an
alcoholic and was an addict of cannabis. He used to demand money from them.
On receipt of information when she went there, she her dead body which had
marks of injury. There has not been any cross examination of this witness on
this part of her testimony.
8. From the extensive nature of injuries found on the dead body, plea of
defence that it was caused by accidental fall, cannot be accepted. It is nobody's
case that deceased had an accidental fall from stair case. To have sustain
extensive injuries on both right and left side of the body, resulting in fracture of
right five ribs, is something which cannot be reconciled with story of accidental
fall. Further, the incidence took place in the house of the appellant and it has
also come in evidence that there was past history of the deceased being assaulted
by the appellant after he took liquor. It was incumbent on the part of the
appellant to offer some explanation in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act
as to how his wife met a homicidal death at her home with extensive physical
injuries. No explanation has been put forward on behalf of the defence to
explain the homicidal death of the deceased. The cumulative effect of these
evidences are that it was the appellant and none else who committed the offence.
9. In this view of matter, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below 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.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 24th September, 2024
AFR/Anit
