High Court
Case Details
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1127 of 2009 [Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2009 and order of sentence dated 05.12.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Daltonganj at Palamau in Sessions Trial No.7 of 2003] Manoj Singh @ Manoj Kumar .... .... …. Appellant --Versus-- The State of Jharkhand …. …. …. Respondent For the Appellant For the State : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, Advocate : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Special P.P.
Legal Reasoning
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ----- SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. ----- JUDGMENT Reserved on: 10.07.2024 Pronounced On: 22.07.2024 Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code passed in Sessions Trial No.7 of 2003 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Daltonganj at Palamau. 2. Informant of the case is father of the deceased on whose statement, the case has been registered on 26.11.2001. As per the FIR, he had married his daughter (deceased) to Manoj Singh (appellant) in 1995. After the marriage, a demand of Maruti Car was made in dowry, which he was unable to meet due to poor financial condition. It is alleged that the appellant threatened to enter into second marriage and his daughter used to be assaulted by the appellant and her in- laws. One month before the incidence, granddaughter of the informant namely Priyanka Kumari, aged seven years, had gone to live with her daughter. In the night on 25.11.2001, the appellant and in-laws assaulted his daughter, resulting in the death of his daughter at Japla where his son-in-law was working. On the very same night, she was brought from Japla to Tendwa Kala. He received information and went there and found his daughter to be dead. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Chhatarpur, Hariharganj P.S. Case No.73 of 2001 was registered under Sections 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Manoj Singh (appellant), Ram Pravesh Singh (father of appellant) and elder son of Ram Pravesh Singh. 4. Police on investigation, found the case true and filed charge sheet against Manoj Singh, later, charge sheet was also submitted against Janardan Singh and 1 Ram Pravesh Singh and Neelam Singh under Sections 498A, 302/120B of the IPC. Ram Pravesh Singh and his son Neelam Singh were not sent-up for trial. 5. Manoj Singh and Janardan Singh were charged under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC and put on trial. 6. Altogether eight witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution and relevant documents were marked as Exhibit 1–5 including the post-mortem report and inquest report. After prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons were recorded twice under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first was on 24.08.2004 and second on 12.10.2009. Defence is of innocence. Specific defence pleaded on behalf of appellant – Manoj Singh is that at midnight, he found his wife to be not on bed and when he went to look for her, he found her lying near hand-pump and was heavily breathing. He took her to Dr. Gautam for treatment. 7. Learned trial court acquitted Janardan Singh and convicted the appellant for the offence charged. 8. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant that out of five material witnesses, P.W. 4- Ramadhar Singh resident of Hussainabad, District Palamau, P.W. 5 – Vimla Kumari, have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 9. Prosecution case rests on the solitary eye witness account of Priyanka Kumari who was seven years of age at the time of incidence and her testimony suffers from vital contradictions. Deceased with the appellant were living in a tenanted house which was double storey and there were other tenants, but they were not made witness in this case and have been withheld by the prosecution. 10. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. 11. The Doctor, who had conducted autopsy, has been examined as P.W. 2 and he has proved the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit 1) and following ante mortem injuries were found:- I. Abrasion 1/2 X 1/2 cm on front of left knee. II. Linear abrasion 1½ cm long over lateral side of left upper thigh. III. 1 X 1/4 cm over back of right forearm and middle part. IV. Graze 14 X 5 cm on left posterior medial side of left leg. V. There was diffused contusion of left side of frontal scalp measuring 11 cm X 7 cm. There was presence of subdural blood and blood clot over both sides of brain and contusion of left frontal lobe of the brain. The doctor opined all the injuries were ante mortem caused by hard and 2 blunt substance. Death was caused due to shock as a result of head injury. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he did not find any blood coming out or blood oozing out or any injury. Graze could not cause by fall. 12. The above ante-mortem injuries are not compatible with accidental death by fall in the bathroom or on the hand-pump. The deceased suffered altogether four injuries on different parts of the body being forehead, upper thigh, forearm and left leg. In any case, in the event of accidental injury by fall in the house, there could not have been multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased. 13. The incidence took place at Japla and it has been pleaded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that she had been taken to one local Doctor, but the said Doctor was not examined. From these materials, it can be logically inferred that death was homicidal and not accidental in nature. 14. Now coming to author of crime, the deceased being the wife of appellant and death admittedly having taken place in the dwelling house when the appellant was also present in the house with the deceased on the said night, the burden of proving how she died under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is on the appellant. No plausible explanation has been offered by the appellant regarding the cause of death. 15. Priynaka Kumari (PW-1) is the natural witness to the incidence as she was the niece of the deceased and was staying with her at the relevant time of incidence. She has deposed that the accused returned from market, and when the deceased opened the door she was killed. When she started crying, life threat was also given to her. On earlier occasions also there used to be an altercation between the deceased and the appellant. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that before one month of incidence she had gone to Japla. It has been further deposed at para-10 of the cross-examination that fufa had returned from the market at 9.30 in the night. Dead body remained in the house throughout the night. The accused was living in a rented house in which no other tenant lived. 16. Under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, child is a competent witness. The court may seek corroboration of the said testimony not as rule of law, but by way of caution if the child withstands the test of cross-examination and there is no infirmity in her evidence, the prosecution can rightly claim conviction based upon her testimony alone. Some discrepancies in the statement of child witness, cannot be made the basis for discarding the testimony unless they were material. [referred to Suryanarayana Versus State of Karnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129]. 17. In the present case, the child witness – P.W. 1 has specifically deposed in para 2 that accused assaulted the deceased, resulting in her death. In para 3, she has added that he used to tell her that he will not keep her and will marry again. 3 In her cross-examination, she has deposed that she had come to Japla one month before the incidence. She further stated that the deceased had suffered head injury and there was swelling on her forehead. She had bleed from her mouth. In para 9, she has deposed that she had taken her meal, but had not slept. 18. Other witness namely Yadunandan Singh (P.W. 3), who is informant of the case, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, are not eye witness to the incidence and their testimony regarding factum of incidence is not relevant. Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in para 3, has given the details of the place of occurrence to be situated in Hussainabad Market in the house of Krishna Murari Prasad in which the appellant and deceased were living in first floor as tenant. 19. Having considered the facts and circumstance of the case, homicidal death took place in the dwelling house in presence of appellant for which no reasonable explanation has been given by him. The child witness – P.W. 1 has withstood the test of cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve her account. Under the circumstance, we are of the view that Judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference. Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Per Ananda Sen, J. I agree. (Ananda Sen, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, 22nd July, 2024 AFR/Anit 4