High Court
Case Details
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 530 of 2013 [Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 25.04.2013 and order of sentence dated 30.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- III, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.187 of 2012] 1. Govind Jha 2. Rani Jha --Versus-- The State of Jharkhand .... .... …. Appellants …. …. …. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate Mr. Rohit, Advocate : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Special P.P. For the State PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ----- SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. ----- JUDGMENT Reserved on: 05.08.2024 Pronounced On: 19.08.2024 Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.187 of 2012 wherein the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The deceased is the first wife of the appellant no.1 – Govind Jha and appellant no.2 – Rani Jha is his second wife. 3. Informant is the brother of the deceased and as per the FIR, on 22.02.2012 in the forenoon, she was set on fire by dousing with petrol by the appellants which resulted in her death. On earlier occasions also, it is alleged that they had plotted to commit her murder and complaint regarding this was sent to the National Human Rights Commission on 23.03.2006 by the deceased. She had also filed an informatory petition before the court being Miscellaneous Case No.46 of 2006 against her husband. When the informant of the case came to Tata (Jamshedpur), he came to know that the deceased was immolated in the courtyard and from the newspaper, he received information that tongue of the deceased was protruded. 1 4. On the basis of the written report, Kadma P.S. Case No.30 of 2012 was registered on 23.02.2012 under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code against both the appellants and also against the mother of appellant no.1. 5. On investigation, charge sheet was submitted only against these appellants under Section 306 of the IPC. 6. The appellants were put on trial for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC and alternative charge under Section 302 of the IPC was also framed. 7. Altogether four material witnesses, Autopsy Surgeon (P.W. 5) and the Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) were examined and the following documents were adduced into evidence:- I. Exhibit 1 and 1/1 – Written report and endorsement of Officer-in- Charge of Kadma Police Station. II. Exhibit 2 – Address on envelope of the deceased sent to the informant. III. Exhibit 3 – Signature of Advocate on legal notice to both these appellants. IV. Exhibit 4 – Marriage Certificate of both these appellants dated 19.02.2010. V. Exhibit 5 – Post-mortem report. VI. Exhibit 6 – Formal FIR. VII. Exhibit 7 – Carbon copy of inquest report. VIII. Exhibit 8 – Seizure list. 8. Apart from these evidences, certain documents were also marked as X for identification. 9. Learned trial court held that there was no direct eye witness to the incidence and convicted the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC while acquitting them of the charges under Section 306 of the IPC. 10. The circumstances relied upon by the learned trial court was that deceased apprehended threat to her life and she had written letter to the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur way back on 23.03.2006 and also to National Human Rights Commission. Ten days before her death, she had informed the witnesses regarding her apprehension of death in the hand of the appellants and Tripura Devi. There were ante-mortem injuries found on 2 the dead body which suggested homicidal death. Although she died of burn injuries, but no one from the neighborhood, had heard cries of the deceased. 11.
Legal Reasoning
It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of appellants that there is absolutely no legal evidence and the learned trial court has passed the judgment of conviction only on the basis of post-mortem examination report which has specifically stated the cause of death to be the burn injury. 12. Investigating Officer – P.W. 6 has deposed in his examination in chief that initially unnatural death case was registered being U.D. Case No.7 of 2012. It has been also deposed by him that the dead body, after the incidence, was taken out after breaking open the southern door of the courtyard. As the death took place in the courtyard of the house by immolation, which was locked from inside, therefore the inference of homicidal death was beyond available legal evidence. 13. The marital discord and the letters apprehending life threat to the deceased was six years back and after that, the dispute was finally settled. P.W. 2, who happens to be the cousin brother of the deceased, has stated that he did not know the cause of death of his sister. Oral evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 regarding several injuries on the body of deceased, was unsupported by post-mortem examination report. 14. The main contention of the appellant is that the deceased died a suicidal death as she was suffering from Schizophrenia and was under treatment. 15. Learned trial court has specifically recorded in its finding that there was no material of abetment against the appellants. In the absence of any evidence of abetment, the conviction for offence under Section 302 of the IPC passed on circumstantial evidence, is not sustainable. 16. Learned counsel on behalf of State has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is argued that the death took place in the dwelling house of appellant no. 1 by burn injuries. There was one ante-mortem injury also on the dead body and under circumstance, it was incumbent on the part of the appellants to explain the circumstances resulting in her death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 17. In order to appreciate the arguments raised and the circumstances in which the deceased aged about 47 years died due to burn injuries, it will be 3 desirable to extract the ante-mortem injuries found by the Autopsy Surgeon (P.W. 5). On examination, the Doctor recorded the following observations:- I. Both eyes were closed, congested, mouth open, tongue protruded and bitten in between the teeth, II. Whole of the body burnt. Both lower limbs charred and blackened, exposing both right and left femur bones. Lower ends of both femur separated from upper part of femur. Lower part burnt and charred, separated and lying separately. Both legs burnt, charred and just attached to lower part of both thighs. Both thighs burnt and charred. III. On dissection of neck, underlying subcutaneous tissues were found to be normal. Laryngeal and trachea mucosa congested and contained soot particles (carbon particles) in plenty. IV. Contusion on front middle chest muscles 1 cm X 4 cm size, on deep incisions. Autopsy Surgeon opined that injury noted above, were ante-mortem in nature caused by hard and blunt object. Death was due to shock as a result of extensive burn. 18. Opinion of Doctor is emphatic that cause of death was due to extensive burn injuries and thus leaves no room to conjecture that the deceased was first assaulted and killed and then set on fire. The opinion of Doctor is in consonance with medical jurisprudence Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 27th Edition by Modi at page 631 notes that if death has occurred from suffocation, the nasopharynx, trachea and bronchial tube may contain sooty carbon particles, and there mucous membrane may be congested and covered and frothy mucous. 19. Ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased were found only on deep incision and, cannot be a reason to draw an inference that cause of death was anything other than burn injury. 20. Investigating Officer – P.W. 6 has given the description of place of occurrence in para 4 of his deposition that place of occurrence is courtyard in the TISCO Quarter allotted to appellant no.1 – Govind Jha. Door of this courtyard opened on the southern side. The dead body was found in burnt condition on Eastern side of the courtyard. The southern door was found to 4 have been broken which was locked from inside. It was this door which was broken by the persons from the neighborhood who came inside to put off fire. Southern side of the courtyard was the main part of the Quarter leading to dining hall. There was iron grill gate which was found to be open. Its North was veranda of drawing room and the main door for going outside, was locked from inside. 21. From the above description access to the place of occurrence, after the incidence has been specifically stated to be made by breaking the door. This rules out the possibility of the appellants to have entered and set on fire the deceased. 22. Instant case hinges on the deposition of the informant – P.W. 1, who happens to be brother of the deceased. He has admitted in para 17 of the cross-examination that the letter which was addressed to the Human Rights Commission is of the year 2006 and he had not received any document addressed to him from 2006-12. In para 18, he has deposed that the deceased had a son aged 14 years who had died on 27.05.2005 and thereafter, she had no child. In para 20, he states that there had been a compromise between the deceased sister and Govind Jha. In para-24, he has not denied that his sister was under treatment at TMH and on one occasion when he had come to Jamshedpur, he found her to be unconscious in the year 2008-09. He had also gone to see his sister at TMH hospital. He has denied the suggestion that his sister was suffering from Schizophrenia and the cause of death is her son, she committed suicide. P.W. 2 is cousin brother of the deceased, who is not an eye witness, but has deposed that he was told by the deceased that the appellants did not wish to see her alive. P.W. 3 has also deposed that ten days before incidence, the deceased has stated to him that Rani Jha and Tripura Devi wanted to kill her. He has not deposed anything against Govind Jha. 23. P.W. 4 – Soni Jha is daughter of the deceased. She has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. In her cross-examination at para 5, she has deposed that her mother was treated at TMH and also by Dr. Sanatan Rath in Orissa. In para 6, she has deposed that her mother was 5 suffering from this mental illness since before the incidence of death of her brother, and after that her disease got aggravated. In para 8, she has deposed that due to emotional distress, her mother had lodged complaint to National Human Rights Commission against her father. 24. In the absence of any direct evidence, death having been caused by extensive burn injuries in the dwelling house of the appellants cannot per se be the ground to draw an inference that death was homicidal and appellants were complicit in it. The inference of homicidal death will be against the weight of evidence leaning in favour of suicidal death. Initially, an unnatural death case was registered, and on the basis of the written report, FIR was lodged for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. Police on investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 306 IPC. Investigating Officer has stated that the incidence took place in the courtyard of the house which was locked from inside and the door had to be broken by the neighbors to rescue the deceased. As per the post-mortem examination report, death was on account of burn injury. None of the witnesses have deposed that appellants were present in the house at the time of incidence or in its vicinity. All these evidence leads to an irresistible conclusion that death was suicidal in nature and not homicidal. 25. Informant, who happens to be the brother of the deceased (P.W. 1), has admitted her illness and treatment, at Jamshedpur. Daughter of the deceased (P.W. 4) has admitted that deceased was suffering from Schizophrenia and was under treatment. Finding of the learned trial court that deceased could not have been suffering from Schizophrenia as she was capable of writing letters, is somewhat outlandish and not supported by medical jurisprudence. 26. Against these evidences, history of past marital discord six years old, cannot be a circumstance to hold that the appellants abetted the suicide of the deceased. Her mental illness may have been exacerbated by the death of her fourteen years old son and her husband performing second marriage. But, these circumstances cannot be accepted as legal evidence of abetment to commit suicide and therefore, learned trial court rightly held that charge under Section 306 of the IPC was not proved. 6 27. As the death was suicidal, the finding and sentence recorded for conviction under Section 302 of the IPC by the learned trial court, is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside. Appellant no.1 is in custody and is directed to be released forthwith. Appellant no.2 is on bail and her sureties are discharged from the liabilities of her bail bond. Appeal is allowed.
Decision
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. 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, 19th August, 2024 AFR/Anit 7