The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 237 of 1997 (R) Sanjay Minz, son of Shri Uzious Minz, resident of village Purio, PS: Ratu, District: Ranchi ... Appellant State of Bihar now Jharkhand ...Respondent -Versus- CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. CAV on: 19/11/2024 Pronounced on:27/11/2024 … Per, R.Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, the learned amicus curiae for the appellant and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, the learned Spl. P.P. for the respondent- State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.09.1997 and the order of sentence dated 27.09.1997, passed by Shri Anant Vijay Singh, the learned 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 540 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Hanna Toppo recorded on 21.06.1996 in which it has been stated that about a month and eight days back she and her husband were staying in the room and her daughter Karuna Toppo was sleeping in another room when at 10:00 p.m. Sanjay Minz (appellant) had entered into the room of the daughter of the informant and assaulted her with hammer and thereafter by pouring kerosene oil set her ablaze. At the time of commission of such offence the husband and the mother-in-law of the informant forbade the accused to do any harm but the accused threatened them of committing their murder. The accused after
Legal Reasoning
setting the daughter of the informant on fire left the place. The informant got her daughter treated in a private hospital and about a week back the informant had brought back her daughter to her house where she was being treated but she ultimately succumbed to her burn injuries in the night of 20.06.1996. The reason for the occurrence is that the daughter of the informant had refused the proposal of marriage extended by the accused. 1 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 237 of 1997 (R) 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Ratu PS Case No. 65 of 1996 was instituted against Sanjay Minz under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 Sessions Trial No. 540 of 1996. Charge was framed against the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. 6. PW-1 Dulari Toppo is the grandmother of the accused who has stated that Karuna Toppo is the daughter of her son who was assaulted by Sanjay Minz with a hammer on head. After committing the assault Sanjay had poured kerosene oil upon Karuna Toppo and set her ablaze. The incident had occurred at midnight and she was in the room besides the room where the occurrence had taken place. When Sanjay had fled away she had gone to the said room. When Karuna started raising alarm she had seen the occurrence. At that point of time, she, Karuna and the parents of Karuna were in the house. In cross-examination she has deposed that she had poured water over Karuna to douse the fire. It was summer when the incident had occurred and there was darkness all around. Karuna was put on fire by the accused by means of a Dhibri. She had seen the assault committed upon Karuna. On hearing the commotion Govinda, Lacchu and other neighbours had come. She does not have a good vision. She has deposed that there was a love affair between Sanjay Minz and Karuna Toppo. 7. PW-2 Noor Mohammad has stated that he was going to Ratu and on seeing a crowd near the house of Mansidh Toppo he had gone there and saw the dead body of Karuna Toppo. He has proved his signature and the signature of Bal Kishore Oraon upon the inquest report which have been marked as Ext.1 and Ext.1/1 respectively. 8. PW-3 Bal Kishore Oraon has identified his signature as a witness in the inquest report which has already been proved and marked as Ext. 1/1. 9. PW-4 Mansidh Toppo is the father of the deceased who has stated that on the date of the incident he was in the varandah of his house along with his wife and mother. It was around midnight when Sanjay had entered the house and had assaulted Karuna on the head with an iron hammer. Sanjay had thereafter put his daughter on fire by pouring kerosene oil upon her. They had 2 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 237 of 1997 (R) forbade the accused not to indulge in such act but he did not relent and after putting her on fire he had fled away. He had got his daughter treated by a doctor at Ratu and thereafter at Mandar but when his daughter was refused admission at Mandar she was brought to RMCH and when he faced a dearth of money he had brought his daughter to his house where medicines were being administered to her but in the meantime she died. He has stated that Sanjay wanted to solemnize marriage with Karuna but Karuna was reluctant in accepting such proposal and this resulted in the incident. In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of the incident they were sleeping in the varandah. When he had taken his daughter to a doctor at Ratu the said doctor had not prescribed any medicine nor had given a prescription. He had taken his daughter to Bariatu after three weeks from the time she had suffered the burn injuries and she was admitted there. He does not know as to whether the concerned doctor had informed the police or not. He also does not know as to whether any paper was given in the Bariatu hospital at the time of discharge of his daughter. The information about the incident was first given to the choukidar and the police after three weeks of the incident. When they had doused the fire the villagers had assembled but the choukidar had not come. After about 6-7 days he had met the choukidar and had disclosed the entire episode to the choukidar. It was dark when the incident had taken place. He has deposed that Karuna had a love affair with Sanjay which he did not like. 10. PW-5 Hanna Toppo is the informant and the mother of the deceased who has stated that the incident is of thirteen months back at 10:00 p.m. and at that point of time she was in the varandah along with her husband Manshid Toppo and mother-in-law. All were sleeping. Sanjay Minz had entered into the house and had assaulted Karuna Toppo with a hammer on her head and thereafter he had poured kerosene oil upon her and set her ablaze. They doused the fire and got Karuna treated by Banda Charwa and since his medicine did not have the desired effect, she had called doctor Bhagat and on his advice she had taken her daughter to Mandar and thereafter to Bariatu hospital where she was treated for three weeks. Since her daughter could not recover and since she was facing financial constraints Karuna Toppo was brought home and after 6-7 days she died. Sanjay had committed the murder because her daughter had rejected the offer of Sanjay to solemnize marriage with her. She has stated that no case was filed immediately after the occurrence since Sanjay had threatened them. 3 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 237 of 1997 (R) In cross-examination, she has deposed that it was a dark night when the incident had taken place. She and the others were sleeping in the varandah while Karuna was sleeping the room. She had woken up on the barking of dogs and she had seen Karuna coming out of room into the courtyard and the upper portion of the body was already burnt. The love affair between Karuna and Sanjay was going on for the last 2-3 years. In Bariatu hospital her daughter was treated by Dr. R.N. Singh and the documents relating to the treatment have been kept somewhere. When Sanjay had dragged out Karuna from the room with one hand, while in the other hand he had a hammer. In the varandah, Sanjay had assaulted Karuna on the head with a hammer. She has deposed that she did not approve of the love affair between Sanjay and Karuna. 11. PW-6 Niranjan Kumar Gorh who was posted at Ratu PS had recorded the statement of the informant and had inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of the informant in which the courtyard is surrounded by
Legal Reasoning
three rooms. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Ext.3. He had recorded the statement of other witnesses and had sent the body for autopsy. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not removed the bandage from the body of the deceased and the injury on the head seems to be on account of hammer blow. He had not seized any dhibri or hammer. The informant in her statement had stated that initially her daughter was given local treatment and later on she was taken to RMCH. He had not recorded the statement of the Ayurvedic practitioner or the doctor who had treated her at RMCH. He had not recorded the statement of the neighbours Lacchu Oraon, Sadhu Oraon and Govinda. 12. PW-7 Dr. Tulsi Mahto was posted as Assistant Professor in Forensic Medicine Department, RMCH and on 21.06.1996 he had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Karuna Toppo and had found the following: i) ii) Dermal epidermal burn involving face, neck, front part of chest and upper part front of abdomen both upper limbs, back of trunck including gluotal region burnt area roughly 60%. The burnt area was infected all over with presence of pus and greenish discolouration of the wound. There was presence of bed sore over the occipital region of the head. Internally the organs were pale the stomach contained fluid over 125 M.L. The urinary bladder was empty. The utems was normal and non pregnant. There was pus point in the lower part of the lung with consolidation. 4 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 237 of 1997 (R) The above noted burnt injury was opined to be ante-mortem in nature. It has been stated that the opinion regarding bed sore over the occipital region as to whether there was any injury or not can be had from the surgeon concerned. Death was due to burn and its complication. The post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Ext.4. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the age of burn injury was more than one week roughly. 13. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, learned amicus curiae has stated that there has been a delay of one month and eight days in instituting the case and no explanation has been given for such delay. It has been submitted that the deceased was treated at various places including RMCH but not a single chit of paper has been produced by the prosecution. Mr. Mahtha adds that the allegation of assaulting with a hammer on the head by the appellant seems to have been doubted by virtue of the evidence of PW-7. As per the witnesses it was a dark night when the incident had taken place and the identity of the appellant as the assailant has not been sufficiently proved. 14. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl.P.P. has submitted that so far as the delay in lodging the First Information Report is concerned PW-5 has suitably explained the same as the appellant had threatened them if any case was lodged. The evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 clearly reveal that the appellant had entered into the room of Karuna Toppo, assaulted on her head with a hammer, poured kerosene oil over her and set her ablaze. The motive for committing such act by the appellant has also been explained by the witnesses regarding the refusal on the part of the deceased to accede to the offer of the appellant to solemnize marriage with him. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial Court records. 16. The act of the appellant seems to have taken place at night when he had surreptitiously entered into the house of the informant, searched out her daughter Karuna Toppo, committed assault on her head with a hammer and set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil upon her. She was initially treated locally but subsequently admitted to RMCH. Surprisingly enough, none of the doctors/ persons who had treated Karuna Toppo had informed the police although it was apparent that she was badly burnt. Even the treating doctor in RMCH did not inform the police. As per PW-4, the father of the deceased, the incident was reported to the choukidar after 6-7 days from the date of occurrence but the choukidar also did not inform the police. Not a single chit 5 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 237 of 1997 (R) of paper has been produced by the prosecution to strengthen the explanation furnished that the deceased was being treated at various hospitals/ clinics. As per PW-5 the informant, in her statement had indicated about the treatment given to her daughter by an Ayurvadic doctor and at RMCH but the Investigating Officer (PW-6) had not taken any pains in examining the treating doctor. There is a total lack of any independent witness so as to ascertain as to whether the incident as alleged had indeed taken place on the assigned date or not. The doubt created by the prosecution is further enhanced when we peruse the evidence of PW-7 who in his cross-examination has deposed that the age of the burn injury is roughly more than a week which does not coincide with the date of occurrence at all rather it is in synchronization with the period the deceased was treated at home as stated by PW-4 and PW-5. The entire sequence as depicted above creates a fundamental flaw in the prosecution case of being unable to explain the inordinate delay in lodging the case. 17. So far as the eye-witness account of PW-4 and PW-5 are concerned, their version of the events appears to be at variance. The evidence of PW-4 reveals that he and his wife (PW-5) had woken up prior to the dastardly act committed by the appellant and had forbade him from indulging in such act but the appellant did not relent and while setting ablaze his daughter had fled away. The evidence of PW-4 has been contradicted by PW-5 who in her cross- examination has stated that when she had woken up from sleep on the barking of dogs she had seen Karuna coming out of the room in a burnt condition. Subsequently, though she has stated that Karuna was put on fire by the appellant in the varandah. PW-5 therefore has contradicted her own evidence with respect to the place of occurrence. The only common thread which runs through the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 are their dislike and disapproval of the love affair between Karuna and the appellant and in view of the doubt created over the eye-witness account of PW-4 and PW-5 the motive for false implication of the appellant gains credence. We are aware about the evidence of PW-1 who is the grandmother of the deceased but her eye-witness account is thoroughly doubtful on account of her own admission that she has a poor vision and the incident had taken place at midnight when there was darkness all around. 18. The other feature of the case is the absence of any opinion by the doctor (PW-7) who conducted autopsy regarding head injury suffered by the deceased as opinion was to be had from the surgeon and the evidence of the 6 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 237 of 1997 (R) Investigating Officer (PW-6), whose opinion about the injury on head is full of skeptimism. Therefore, the purported hammer blow given by the appellant on the head of the deceased as consistently stated by PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 seems to have been completely demolished. 19. As per PW-1 on hearing the commotion several persons of the locality had assembled but PW-6 has categorically stated that none of the neighbours were examined by him which further indicates the slipshod manner in which the investigation has been conducted. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 but as we have demonstrated above none of the said witnesses can be relied upon and the absence of a suitable explanation for the delay in lodging the First Information Report would lead us to conclude that the role played by the appellant as alleged has
Decision
not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and consequently, we set aside the judgment of conviction dated 26.09.1997 and the order of sentence dated 27.09.1997, passed by Shri Anant Vijay Singh, the learned 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 540 of 1996. 20. This appeal is allowed. 21. Pending IA, if any, stands closed. 22. Before parting with this judgment, we take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, the learned amicus curiae and we direct the Member-Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees to Mr. Mahtha within two weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 23. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Member- Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee forthwith. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated:27/ 11 /2024 S.B. 7 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 237 of 1997 (R)