Munna Harijan @ Munna Lal Harijan vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 2996 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.825 of 2014
  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2011 Thana- DIGHALBANK District- Kishanganj
======================================================

Munna Harijan @ Munna Lal Harijan Son of Shyam Lal Harijan Resident of Village - Tulsia Kumhar Toli P.S.- Dighalbank, District -Kishanganj.

... ... Appellant.

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR)

Date : 20-05-2022

By this appeal, the appellant/convicted accused is

challenging the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2014 and

01.08.2014 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions

Judge-IV, Kishanganj, in Sessions Case No.565 of 2013, thereby

convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer

imprisonment of life apart from directing him to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for

six months. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be

referred to as "an accused".

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the prosecution of

the accused projected from the police report can be summarized

thus:

(a). Rukmani Devi (since deceased) was wife of

accused Munna Harijan. She married the accused about four

months prior to her homicidal death and that marriage was a

love marriage.

(b). Deceased Rukmani Devi lost her mother at the

age of about two years. Her father, thereafter, neglected to

maintain her and entrusted her to her maternal uncle P.W.9 Ram

Lal Harijan-the first informant. Rukmani Devi was then

maintained by her maternal uncle/P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan and

her maternal aunt P.W.8 Rina Devi, wife of P.W.9 Ram Lal

Harijan. The accused used to reside in their neighbourhood at

village-Tulsia Kumhar Toli, Police Station-Dighalbank, District-

Kishanganj. Love relations between accused and Rukmani Devi

developed and that is how, the accused and Rukmani Devi

married each other and Rukmani Devi started cohabiting with

the accused in the very same village. After initial nice treatment

to her, married life of Rukmani Devi suffered from rough

weather, as the accused used to harass her by demanding dowry

in the form of gold and cash of Rs.10,000/-. In the meanwhile, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

elder brother Naresh Lal Harijan of the accused became ill and

after prolonged illness he died just a day earlier to the day on

which Rukmani Devi was murdered. Because of prolonged

illness of Naresh Lal Harijan, Rukmani Devi was being

considered as inauspicious women and she was driven out of her

matrimonial house and, as such, she was required to take shelter

at the house of her maternal uncle P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan and

maternal aunt P.W.8 Rina Devi.

(c). According to the prosecution case, the incident

of commission of murder of Rukamani Devi took place in the

morning hours of 23.07.2011 itself at the house of P.W.9 Ram

Lal Harijan and P.W.8 Rina Devi, where Rukmani Devi was

residing after being driven out of her matrimonial house by the

accused. On that day, at about 12.00 P.M., P.W.8 Rina Devi was

in front yard of her house for drying the washed clothes. The

accused entered in her house. He assaulted Rukmani Devi and

after hearing shouts of Rukmani Devi, P.W.8 Rina Devi entered

inside her house. She saw the accused holding a knife. The

accused had given blows of the knife to Rukmani Devi. P.W.8

Rina Devi questioned the accused and accused threatened her

and asked her to run away. P.W.8 Rina Devi came out of the

house shouting loudly. The accused ran away by taking knife Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

and lot of people who gathered there had seen him going away

with the knife.

(d). Accompanied by P.W.8 Rina Devi, P.W.9 Ram

Lal Harijan, who had returned to the house after being informed

about the incident, went to Police Station-Dighalbank on

23.07.2011 and P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan lodged report of the

incident, which was signed by P.W.8 Rina Devi as a witness.

Accordingly, crime in question was registered and wheels of

investigation were set in motion.

(e). Routine investigation followed. The Investigating

Officer recorded inquest notes and dead body of Rukmani Devi

was sent for autopsy to the Sadar Hospital, Kishanganj. P.W.1

Dr. Gadadhar Pandey conducted post-mortem examination on

the dead body of Rukmani Devi and prepared the post-mortem

report (Ext.1), which was signed by P.W.3 Dr. Ramdev Prasad,

the Deputy Superintendent of that Hospital. Statement of

witnesses came to be recorded and on completion of

investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed.

(f). So far as the accused is concerned, charge for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

was framed and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and

claimed trial.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

(g). In order to bring home the guilt to the accused,

the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses those are

as under:

(I). P.W.1 Dr. Gadadhar Pandey, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Kishanganj, who performed autopsy.

(II). P.W.2 Krishna Prasad, neighbour of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan, who claimed to have seen the post event happenings.

(III). P.W.3 Dr. Ramdev Prasad, the Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Kishanganj, who witnessed the autopsy conducted by P.W.1 Dr. Gadadhar Pandey and signed the post- mortem report.

(IV). P.W.4 Rupo Devi, neighbour of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan.

(V). P.W.5 Dukho Devi, neighbour of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan.

(VI). P.W.6 Ghatak Lal Harijan, neighbour of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan and husband of P.W.4 Rupo Devi.

(VII). P.W.7 Ajay Kumar Pandit, resident of village-

Tulsia Kumhar Toli.

(VIII). P.W.8 Rina Devi, wife of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan, an eye witness and maternal aunt of the deceased Rukmani Devi.

(IX). P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan, the first informant and maternal uncle of the deceased Rukmani Devi. (X). P.W.10 Shashi Shekhar Choubey, P.S.O.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

Dighalbank Police Station-the Investigating Officer.

The prosecution has also relied upon the documentary

evidence such as F.I.R., inquest report, post-mortem report,

which are proved from the concerned witnesses.

(h). The defence of the accused was that of total

denial. However, he did not enter into the defence.

(i) After hearing the parties, the learned trial court

was pleased to convict the accused and to sentence him as

indicated in the opening paragraphs of this Judgment by holding

that the prosecution has proved that the accused had committed

murder of his wife Rukmani Devi on 23.07.2011.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for

the appellant/accused. He argued that P.W.8 Rina Devi cannot

be said to be a prudent person having capacity to depose as she

has stated in her evidence that she married P.W.9 Ram Lal

Harijan prior to 14 years and has further stated her age as 22

years. According to the learned counsel, she has three children

and, therefore, she is not a matured lady, whose evidence can be

accepted. It is further argued that P.W.2 Krishna Prasad is a

labourer who goes for labourer work and he cannot be an eye

witness to the subject crime which took place after 09.00 A.M.

It is further argued that P.W.4 Rupo Devi is also not an eye Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

witness to the subject crime and P.W.5 Dukho Devi is an

interested witness because as per the village relations, the first

informant is her brother-in-law. It is urged that the first

informant is also not an eye witness to the subject crime and,

therefore, the appellant/accused is entitled for acquittal.

Evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is

contradictory. It is also argued that, in fact, the case is of

honour killing of Rukmani Devi because she married the

accused because of love relations. Therefore, she was killed by

her parents. It is further argued that weapon of the offence was

not recovered and the prosecution has failed to prove the

motive.

4. As against this, the learned A.P.P. supported the

impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and resultant

sentence by contending that by trustworthy evidence,

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused.

5. We have considered the rival submissions and we

have also gone through the records and the proceedings

including the oral as well as documentary evidence.

6. At the outset, the prosecution will have to establish

the fact that deceased Rukmani Devi died homicidal death on

23.07.2011. Unimpeachable evidence of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

and his wife P.W.8 Rina Devi shows that Rukmani Devi died

because of infliction of blows of knife on her at their house on

23.07.2011. Other witnesses, who happen to be neighbours of

P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan and his wife P.W.8 Rina Devi have

stated that they had seen dead body of Rukmani Devi drenched

with blood lying at the house of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan.

Evidence of P.W.8 Rina Devi and her husband P.W.9 Ram Lal

Harijan shows that after the incident, upon being informed by

the villagers, police came on the spot and took dead body of

Rukmani Devi to the Hospital at Kishanganj after effecting

necessary writing work.

7. Evidence of P.W.10 Shashi Shekhar Choubey, the

Investigating Officer, shows that by taking over the

investigation of the subject crime, he visited the spot of the

incident, which was the house of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan at

Tulsia Kumhar Toli. Dead body of Rukmani Devi was lying in

the room and after inspecting dead body, he prepared the inquest

notes (Ext.5) and then dispatched the dead body to the Sadar

Hospital, Kishanganj, for post-mortem examination. The inquest

notes at Ext.5 shows that dead body was having injuries on back

and other parts of body and blood was oozing from those

wounds.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

8. Evidence of P.W.3 Dr. Ramdev Prasad, Deputy

Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Kishanganj, shows that the

said hospital received the dead body of Rukmani Devi in

presence of the relatives named as Bhutuk Lal Harijan and

Gautam Lal Harijan and, thereafter, as stated by him, post-

mortem examination on dead body of Rukmani Devi was

conducted by P.W.1 Dr. Gadadhar Pandey in his presence.

9. Evidence of P.W.1 Dr. Gadadhar Pandey shows

that during the course of autopsy, he found following

antemorten injuries on the dead body of Rukmani Devi:

(1). Incised wound 1½" x 1/2" x 1/4" on front of left upper arm.

(2). Incised wound 1½" x 1/2" x 1/4" on front of left upper arm below injury No.1. (3). Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/2" on front of left elbow.

(4). Incised wound 1½" x 1/4" x 1/2" on outer side of left elbow.

(5). Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/2" on left Anilla.

(6). Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/2" on left side of waist.

(7). Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on outer side of left side of chest.

(8). Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on back right lob of lung.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

As deposed by P.W.1 Dr. Gadadhar Pandey, Rukmani

Devi died because of haemorrhage and shock caused by

injuries, which were caused by sharp cutting weapon. This

witness proved the post-mortem report (Ext.1), which is

corroborating his version. With this acceptable evidence, the

prosecution has proved that Rukmani Devi died homicidal

death on 23.07.2011 at her residential house owned by her

maternal uncle P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan and aunt P.W.8 Rina

Devi at village Tulsia Kumhar Toli.

10. Now let us examine whether the prosecution has

proved that the accused had committed murder of his wife

Rukmani Devi by causing her death with the intention of

causing her death by inflicting successive blows of knife on her

person. The star witness for the prosecution is P.W.8 Rina

Devi, wife of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan. As stated in the

foregoing paragraphs, she is maternal aunt of deceased

Rukmani Devi and had maintained the deceased from her

childhood. Evidence of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan-maternal uncle

of deceased Rukmani Devi and more particularly, his cross-

examination goes to show that after death of mother of

Rukmani Devi, this couple had maintained Rukmani Devi.

Biological father of Rukmani Devi and her step mother had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

refused to maintain Rukmani Devi after death of her mother.

Similar is the version of P.W.8 Rina Devi coming on record

from her cross-examination. The defence has brought on record

from cross-examination of P.W.8 Rina Devi that when Rukmani

Devi was child her mother died and her father remarried. After

death of mother of Rukmani Devi, her father had handed over

Rukmani Devi to P.W.8 Rina Devi and her husband P.W.9 Ram

Lal Harijan. Thus, the defence has accepted this position by

eliciting this material from cross-examination of these

witnesses. Thus, house of P.W. 8 Rina Devi and P.W. 9 Ramlal

was the parental house of Rukmani Devi. The defence has also

elicited from cross-examination of P.W.8 Rina Devi that there

was love affair between Rukmani Devi and the accused.

Rukmani Devi, because of love relations, married accused

Munna and, thereafter, she as well as her husband were relieved

of the responsibility of maintaining Rukmani Devi. With this

undisputed position, let us now examine what is the version of

P.W.8 Rina Devi about the incident.

11. It is in evidence of P.W.8 Rina Devi that on the

date of the incident, she was drying the clothes at her front

yard. At about 12.00 noon, accused Munna entered in her

house and assaulted Rukmani Devi by knife. P.W.8 Rina Devi Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

further stated that hearing the shouts, she entered inside her

house. She further stated that the accused gave knife blows on

neck and back of Rukmani Devi and he was holding the knife.

It is further testified by P.W.8 Rina Devi that when she

questioned, the accused threatened her and asked her to run

away from the spot. P.W.8 Rina Devi then came out of the

house by shouting and then accused Munna ran away from the

spot. In cross-examination, she stated that then she went to the

police station with her husband for lodging the report. In cross-

examination, it was only suggested to her that she had not seen

the incident and is telling a lie. She denied this suggestion.

Except this suggestion, she was not cross-examined in respect

of the incident of murderous assault by the accused on Rukmani

Devi, as deposed by her in the cross-examination. Thus, her

evidence regarding the incident of murderous assault by the

accused on Rukmani Devi has virtually went unchallenged.

Similarly, we are unable to find any question put to this witness

regarding alleged honour killing of Rukmani Devi by her

parental relatives for the reason that they were not happy with

the love marriage of Rukmani Devi and the accused. On the

contrary, in cross-examination, P.W.8 Rina Devi has stated that

after marriage of Rukmani Devi and the accused, she and her Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

husband were relieved of their responsibility to maintain

Rukmani Devi which they had taken since Rukmani Devi was

aged about two years. There is no material in evidence of P.W.8

Rina Devi that any of the parental relatives of the deceased

were angry because of the fact that deceased married the

accused out of love relations. Similarly, there is no reason

coming on record from cross-examination of P.W.8 Rina Devi

to infer that she is telling a lie just to falsely implicate the

accused in the murder of her niece. She seems to be witness of

truth and we have found her signature on the F.I.R. lodged by

her husband P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan, as a witness to that F.I.R.

There is no material to doubt the version of this maternal aunt

of the deceased, who is most natural witness to the incident in

question.

12. P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan is the first informant,

who has set the criminal law in motion by lodging the F.I.R.

However, he was in the field at the time of the incident and

upon getting the information about the incident, he returned to

his house and saw dead body of Rukmani Devi lying at his

house. Then he lodged the F.I.R. (Ext.4).

13. P.W.4 Rupo Devi is the next door neighbour of

P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan and the deceased. From her cross- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

examination this fact is brought on record by the defence.

Similarly, from cross-examination of this witness, the defence

has brought on record that parental house of deceased was that

of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan and his wife P.W.8 Rina Devi. The

defence has also brought on record the fact that a day earlier to

the murder of Rukmani Devi, brother of accused Munna died

and when that death occurred, deceased Rukmani Devi was

residing at the house of P.W.8 Rina Devi and her husband P.W.9

Ram Lal Harijan, who are maternal aunt and maternal uncle

respectively of the deceased. Thus, defence has not disputed

the fact that on the date of the death of Rukmani Devi, she was

staying in the house of P.W.8 Rina Devi and P.W.9 Ram Lal

Harijan. As such, P.W. 8 Rina Devi had every opportunity to

witness the murder of Rukmani Devi which took place at her

house.

14. P.W.4 Rupo Devi, neighbour of the deceased, has

stated in her evidence that prior to three or four months of the

incident of murder, Rukmani Devi married accused Munna.

After initial good treatment to Rukmani Devi, accused started

demanding dowry and then he had driven Rukmani Devi out of

her matrimonial house. With this, P.W.4 Rupo Devi has stated

that the incident of murder of Rukmani Devi took place at about Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

10.00 to 11.00 A.M. and at that time, she was present at the

front yard of her house. As per her version, she saw accused

entering in the house of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan and she thought

that the accused might have came for taking Rukmani Devi

with him. However, accused started assaulting Rukmani Devi

and Rukmani Devi shouted for saving herself. This witness

further stated that maternal aunt of Rukmani Devi said that

Rukmani Devi died and because of shouts, accused Munna

went away from the front of her house. P.W.4 Rupo Devi

testified that then she went inside the house of P.W.8 Rina Devi

and saw Rukmani Devi lying dead with bleeding wounds on

chest, back and nose.

15. As stated earlier, the defence has brought on

record that house of this witness and house of P.W.8 Rina Devi

are adjacent to each other with a common wall and there is only

one approaching road to their house. From her cross-

examination, it is brought on record that a day earlier to the

incident of murder of Rukmani Devi, elder brother of accused

Munna died and accused Munna had performed funeral rites of

his elder brother. She stated in cross-examination that as per

custom in Hindu religion, the person performing funeral rites

does not go out of house for 13 days. With this, the learned Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

counsel for the appellant argued that accused Munna was not

expected to go out of the house for 13 days and, therefore, it is

not possible for him to commit murder of Rukmani Devi on the

next day. We see no logic in this argument and the same is only

noted for rejection. There are no suggestions to P.W.4 Rupo

Devi that she had not seen accused at the spot of the incident.

In fact, her version in the chief examination is not even

challenged in the cross-examination. Thus, evidence of P.W.4

Rupo Devi shows that though she had not actually seen the

incident of murderous assault on Rukmani Devi by the accused,

she saw the accused entering in the house of P.W.8 Rina Devi

and P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan, which was being shared by their

niece Rukmani Devi. P.W.4 Rupo Devi then heard shouts and

utterances of P.W.8 Rina Devi that Rukmani Devi died. This

witness has also seen the fact that at that time, the accused left

spot of the incident. Thereafter, she saw Rukmani Devi in the

pool of blood with bleeding injuries lying inside the house of

P.W.8 Rina Devi and P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan. Her evidence

speaks volume about the presence of the accused on the spot of

the incident at the time of murder of his wife Rukmani Devi.

Thus, this acceptable evidence of P.W.4 Rupo Devi fully

corroborates version of P.W.8 Rina Devi regarding giving of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

successive blows of knife by the accused to deceased Rukmani

Devi and her resultant death.

16. P.W.5 Dukho Devi is also neighbour and her

house is situated after one house from the house of P.W.8 Rina

Devi and P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan. Similarly, her house is at the

distance of 10 feet from the house of the accused. These are the

facts elicited from her cross-examination by the defence. It is,

thus, apparent that even the house of the accused is at a very

short distance from the house of P.W.8 Rina Devi and P.W.9

Ram Lal Harijan. P.W.5 Dukho Devi testified that she was at

the lane in front of her house at about 12.00 noon. She saw

accused Munna returning with the knife and, therefore, she

rushed at the house of Rukmani Devi and saw Rukmani Devi

lying with bleeding injuries. She stated that Rukmani Devi

died on the spot itself and her dead body was taken to the

hospital. From her cross-examination, it was attempted to show

that it was not possible for her to see the incident of accused

going away with the knife as she was expected to be at the

place work, she being the labour. However, her cross-

examination shows that she is an agricultural labour and she

goes for the seasonal work as and when she is called for doing

it. It is a matter of common knowledge that agricultural labour Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

is seasonal work and it is not available throughout the year.

Her cross-examination itself shows that as and when field

owners call for work, the labour is required to go at 09.00 A.M.

and to work upto 04.00 P.M. It was put to her in cross-

examination that whether she remembers that on 23.07.2011,

she had gone for work or not, she answered that she is not

knowing this fact. P.W.5 Dukho Devi is a rustic villager, who

had entered into witness box after about two and half years. It

is not expected of her to remember whether two and half years

earlier and that too on a particular date, she had gone for

agricultural work or not. Tricky question was asked to her as to

whether on 23.07.2011 she had gone for work or not. This half

hearted cross-examination cannot inure to the benefit of the

defence. It was not suggested to her that on the date of the

incident, she had gone for agricultural work. In fact, it was also

not suggested to her that on the date of the incident she was not

present at her house. Hence, it cannot be said that this witness

is telling a lie and was not present on the spot. This witness has

also admitted that elder brother of accused Munna died a day

earlier to the incident and as per Hindu customs, a person

performing funeral is not expected to go out of the house for 13

days. This material cannot lead us any where. Thus, we are of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

the opinion that P.W.5 Dukho Devi by her truthful version has

pointed out presence of the accused on the spot of the incident

and the fact that when Rukmani Devi was lying with bleeding

injuries on her person, the accused was going away holding a

knife from that place. This witness has not exaggerated her

version by claiming her to be an eye witness to the incident.

Her trustworthy evidence is fully corroborating the version of

P.W.8 Rina Devi.

17. P.W. 2 Krishna Prasad is neighbour of P.W.8

Rina Devi. He claimed to have seen the post event happenings

by stating that when Rukmani Devi was lying dead, the accused

went away with the knife in his hand. However, his cross-

examination shows that he is an agricultural labour, who used

to go for work at about 09.00 A.M. As per his version, the

incident took place at about 10.00 A.M. This witness had

accompanied P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan to the court and was

expecting lunch of meat and rice from P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan

on that day. P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan had borne the expenses of

attending the court by this witness. This witness has candidly

admitted the fact that on 23.07.2011, i.e., the date of the

incident, he had gone for work and his working hours were

from 09.00 A.M. Hence, evidence of this witness needs to be Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

kept out of consideration as his version is doubtful and

unreliable.

18. Similarly, version of P.W.6 Ghatak Lal Harijan is

also required to be kept out of consideration because on his own

P.W.6 Ghatak Lal Harijan is stating that he had heard that

accused Munna was holding knife and when he entered the

house, he saw Rukmani Devi lying dead. In cross-examination,

he admitted that on 23.07.2011, he had gone for labour work.

Thus, the evidence of this witness is not of any use to the

prosecution.

19. P.W.7 Ajay Kumar Pandit is also hearsay witness,

who had heard that the accused had committed the murder of

his wife Rukmani Devi.

20. True it is that prosecution witnesses are not

stating exact time of the incident of commission of murder of

Rukmani Devi but this aspect is not of much importance. P.W.8

Rina Devi is stating that the incident took place at about 12.00

noon whereas P.W.4 Rupo Devi is stating that incident took

place at about 10.00 to 11.00 A.M. P.W.5 Dukho Devi has

stated that incident took place at about 12.00 P.M. However, all

these three witnesses are unanimously stating that the incident

took place at the noon time. There is marginal gap of one hour Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

in respect of the time of the incident in versions of these three

witnesses. Sluggish chronomatic sense of rustic villagers is a

matter of common knowledge. Time is not essence of life for

them. In the case in hand, all these three witnesses are rustic

women residing in the small village and some of them are

agricultural labour. It is not expected of them to have a wrist

watch with them to note exact time of the incident. Their

version is found to be otherwise reliable and trustworthy.

Hence, this short gap of time cannot be used to doubt the

prosecution case, which is otherwise found to be truthful and

trustworthy from acceptable version of the witnesses.

21. Case of the prosecution is based on the eye

witness account as well as on the version about the post event

happenings coming on record from the reliable witnesses.

Therefore, motive of the crime in questions pales into

insignificance. Similarly, as the version of the prosecution

regarding giving of successive blows of knife by the accused to

the deceased is acceptable, non recovery of the weapon of

offence from the accused is of no consequence.

22. In the result, we find no merit in the instant

appeal. From evidence of the prosecution, it is proved beyond

all doubts that the accused had committed murder of his wife Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.825 of 2014 dt.20-05-2022

Rukmani Devi on 23.07.2011. The appeal is, accordingly,

dismissed.

(A. M. Badar, J)

( Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)

P.S./-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                12.05.2022.
Uploading Date          20.05.2022
Transmission Date       20.05.2022