Jharkhand High Court
Palko Devi Wife Of Late Sukhilal Mahto vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 20 February, 2025
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.284 of 1998 (R)
Palko Devi wife of Late Sukhilal Mahto, resident of
village Garu, P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi. ----- Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ----- Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Amicus
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P
-------
JUDGMENT
Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence dated 12.08.1998 (sentence passed on
13.08.1998) passed by Shri R. K. Dubey, learned VIIIth Additional
Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 741 of 1996, whereby
and where under the appellant has been convicted for the offence
under Section 302 I.P.C and has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life,
3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbayan of
Ajay Kumar Mahto recorded on 15.08.1996, in which it has been
stated that on 14.08.1996 in the night, the informant after having
his meals, went to sleep. He did not hear any unusual sound in
the night. At around 4-5 a.m., he heard a sound of wailing of his
mother at which he went and found his mother crying in the
courtyard and when the informant went inside the room, he saw
his father lying dead on the cot in a pool of blood. The mother of
the informant had disclosed to him that she had committed the
murder by means of a Kudal. The reason for the occurrence is that
the father of the informant used to drink liquor and commit
assault upon his mother. The father of the informant used to work
in CISF and was posted at Madras but on account of his drinking
habits, he was dismissed from service about 10 years back. A
rickshaw and a tempo were purchased by the father of the
informant but both were sold off and the entire money was spent
on liquor. It has been stated that the father of the informant had
also sold off one acre of land to satisfy his urge of drinking. A few
days back, the younger son, aged 5 years, was brutally assaulted
by the father of the informant who was in an intoxicated state. The
mother of the informant, due to such activities of his father, lost
her mental balance and committed the murder.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Kanke P.S. Case No.
60 of 1996 was instituted under Section 302 I.P.C. On completion
of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance
was taken, the case was committed to the court of sessions where
it was registered as S.T. No. 741/1996. Charge was framed under
Section 302 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused
in Hindi to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 11
witnesses in support of its case.
6. P.W. 1 Tarkeshwar Mahto and P.W. 2 Dashmi Devi have
both been declared hostile by the prosecution.
7. P.W. 3 Salo Devi has stated that she had never heard
of any quarrel between the accused and the deceased. She had
seen the dead body of Sukhilal lying on a cot.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she cannot
say as to who had committed the murder of Sukhilal.
8. P.W. 4 Patho Devi and P.W. 5 Manilal Mahto have been
declared hostile by the prosecution.
9. P.W. 6 Mutiya Devi has been tendered by the
prosecution.
10. P.W. 7 Ajay Kumar Mahto and P.W. 8 Sitaram Mahto
did not support the case of the prosecution and both were
accordingly declared hostile by the prosecution.
11. P.W. 9 Manju Kumari has been tendered by the
prosecution.
12. P.W. 10 Raj Kumar Paswan was posted as a Sub-
Inspector of Police in Kanke P.S. and on 15.08.1996, he had
entered a station diary entry on a rumour that a person has been
murdered. He proceeded towards village Garu along with other
Police personnel and recorded the Fardbayan of Ajay Kumar
Mahto. He has proved the Fardbayan which has been marked as
Exhibit-3. He has also proved the signature of the informant as
well as his own signature upon the Fardbayan which have been
marked as Exhibit-3/1 and 3/2 respectively. The formal FIR has
been marked as Exhibit-4 and the signature of the Officer In-
Charge upon the same as Exhibit-4/1. The inquest report
prepared by him has been marked as Exhibit-1 and his signature
on the same has been marked as Exhibit-1/3. The seizure list of
seized blood-stained Kudal, a blue coloured jacket, a blood-stained
half-shirt of a child and a blood-stained torn blouse has been
proved and marked as Exhibit-2 and the signature of the witnesses
on the same has been marked as Exhibit-2/3. He had inspected
the place of occurrence which is the two-roomed tiled house of the
informant situated at village Garu. He had recorded the
restatement of the informant and the statement of the witnesses.
The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination.
On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge sheet.
The witnesses Tarkeshwar Mahto and Dashmi Devi had stated
about Palko Devi committing the murder of her husband. Similar
statements were given by other witnesses.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not
sent the Kudal for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
13. PW-11 Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhury was posted as a
Tutor in the department of Forensic Medicine, RMCH, Ranchi and
on 15.08.1996, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of
Sukhilal Mahto and had found the following:
(i) Incised wounds:-
(a) 12 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over left tempro frontal
region of head across the left external ear cutting
the under-line bones and brain matter.
(b) 7 x 1 cm x bone deep over left mastoid region and
adjoining left temporal region cutting the under
lying bone partially.
(c) 11 cm x 2 cm x Bone deep over left parietal region
of head cutting the underlying bone and brain
matter.
There was presence of blood and blood clot in the
cranial cavity.
The cause of death was opined to be due to head injury.
He has proved the post-mortem report which has been
marked as Exhibit-5 and his signature upon the same which has
been marked as Exhibit-5/1.
14. The statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C in which he has denied his complicity in the
murder of her husband.
15. It has been submitted by Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned
counsel for the appellant that neither there is any direct evidence
nor circumstantial evidence which would point to the guilt of the
appellant in committing the murder of her husband. The
informant has not supported the case of the prosecution and a
majority of the witnesses have either turned hostile or have been
tendered by the prosecution.
16. Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P has submitted that the
deceased died in his bedroom and the appellant being the wife was
the only person with him which indicates a strong circumstance
of the involvement of the appellant in committing the murder of
her husband.
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective
sides and have also perused the trial court records.
18. In the Fardbayan the informant had stated about the
appellant confessing before him that she had committed the
murder of her husband by means of a Kudal. However, the
informant who has been examined as P.W.7, did not support the
case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the
prosecution. There is not a single witness whose evidence would
indicate that it was the appellant who was the perpetrator of the
murder. It is no doubt true that the deceased was murdered in his
house, but the evidence of the investigating officer (P.W.10) reveals
that the body of the deceased was found lying in a cot in the
veranda in front of a room. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
murder was committed inside the room and this fact rules out the
involvement of the appellant in such incident. Even otherwise
there is no iota of evidence which would be instrumental in
bringing home the charge leveled against the appellant.
19. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made
herein above, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 12.08.1998 (sentence passed on 13.08.1998)
passed by Shri R. K. Dubey, learned VIIIth Additional Judicial
Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 741 of 1996.
20. This appeal is allowed.
21. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the
liability of his bail bond.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated: 20.02.2025
Shamim/-
