……… Lakhan Hansda @ Lakhan Manjhi, S/o Late Pandey Manjhi, R/o Pachori Tola, Barghuta v. ……… …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ……... (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 17.11.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Case Trial No.581 of 2013). Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1383 of 2016 ……… Lakhan Hansda @ Lakhan Manjhi, S/o Late Pandey Manjhi, R/o Pachori Tola, Barghuta, P.O. and P.S. Barora, Dist- Dhanbad The State of Jharkhand Versus ……… ….. Appellant …. Respondent For the Appellant For the State : Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Amicus Curiae : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. Public Prosecutor
Legal Reasoning
In this appeal, after going through the evidence, we find that there is no eye witness to the occurrence, except P.W.-2. P.W.-2 Arti Kumari is the ten years old daughter of the deceased and the appellant. She stated that her mother went missing and on that date her father had assaulted the mother with stick. Thereafter a dead body was found. The Trial Court heavily relied upon the testimony of this P.W. The Trial Court held that since she was not cross- examined on the point of assault, thus, the assault is proved. 12. PW-6. Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased. He stated as follows:- “No evidence of any antemortem external wound was found over the person of the deceased except ligature mark on front of neck encircling the neck, 3 transversally without any gap. This is being observed after cutting the ligature material around the neck. One sliding knot and one fixed knot found in the ligature material. On dissection- Skull bone and meninges and brain found liquified and collapsed to black mass. Larynx and thyroix found fractured with evidence of blood like blackish fluid. Mucous membrance of larynx and trachea found pale. Both lungs and heart found collapsed to blackish mass. Diaphragm evident. All other visceral organs missing with evidence of teeth marks of animals on surroundings. Lower abdomen and private parts eaten by animals.” From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that he did not find any external antemortem injury on the body of the deceased. Only ligature mark was found encircling the neck and the ligature was present there. If the deceased was assaulted brutally with stick (as per version of the daughter), the doctor should have found mark of injury on the body, but the same was not found thus the story of assault with lathi cannot be accepted to be true. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W.-2 stated that the assault was such that appellant became unconscious. So far as other witnesses are concerned, they have neither seen the occurrence of assault nor had seen the appellant taking part in any of the transactions, which led to her death and concealing her body. P.W.-4, who is the informant also stated that he got the information that his daughter was missing and on the next day when he went to the house of the appellant and enquired about his daughter, this appellant expressed his ignorance. On the next day, he received an information from Mukhiya of the village that the dead body of his daughter was lying at Pachori Tola Village. He went and saw the dead body of his daughter and reported the matter to the police. P.W.-3 stated that he received the information that his sister, the deceased was assaulted by this appellant, but as stated earlier, we find that there was no evidence of injury of assault on the body as per the Doctor. P.W.-1 is the hearsay witness. On information, he went to the place of occurrence to see the deceased. 4 Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that save and except, P.W.-2 there is no witness, who could have seen the assault. P.W.-2’s statement on the point of the assault is also not corroborated by the medical evidence. There is nothing to suggest as to who carried the dead body and how the dead body was carried from the house of this appellant to the bushes for concealing the same. The element of doubt is always there. 13. Considering the aforesaid lacuna and on the basis of the statement of a child witness which is unreliable, we are inclined to allow the instant criminal appeal, acquitting the appellant of the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. 14. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 17.11.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Case Trial No.581 of 2013 is set aside. 15. The appellant who is in custody be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 16.
Arguments
----------- PRESENT Sri Ananda Sen, J. Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. J U D G M E N T 28.10.2024 By Court: This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 17.11.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Case Trial No.581 of 2013, whereby the sole appellant was convicted under section 302/201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 201 of IPC. 2. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises, the appellant has been convicted. There is no definite legal evidence to convict the appellant. There are several contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. From the evidence of P.W.-4, the informant, if read with the other evidence it will be clear that there is no material to convict this appellant. The evidence of P.W.-2 who is a child witness, should have been dealt with by the Trial Court cautiously. The medical evidence does not support of the prosecution case. Further the Doctor did not find any injury on the person of the deceased. Since 1 there are no eye witness to the occurrence and the circumstances are also not strong enough to convict this appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of this appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Further all the circumstances have not been put before the appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On these grounds, learned Amicus Curiae prays for acquittal. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the witnesses clearly supported the prosecution case. The daughter of the appellant, aged about 10 years is competent to depose before the Court and she had stated that two months ago, her mother went missing. The father was present in the house and had assaulted her by lathi due to which she became unconscious. The place of occurrence has also been proved. The medical evidence also support the prosecution case, thus, this appellant cannot be acquitted. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the informant- Lakhan Murmu (P.W.-4). He stated that the deceased was married to the appellant. After marriage, the appellant used to assault his daughter. Her daughter went missing and on inquiry this appellant could not give any satisfactory reply. On 10.09.2013, he received an information that dead body of his daughter was lying near the house of the appellant concealed in a bush. He then went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R 5. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Baghmara (Barora) P.S Case No.265 of 2013 was registered under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. After investigation police submitted chargesheet against the appellant and cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 302/201 of IPC. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions where charge was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and the trial proceeded. 2 7. Altogether nine witnesses have been examined in this case, who are as follows:- (i) P.W.-1 Umesh Kumar Mahto (ii) P.W.-2 Aarti Kumari (iii) P.W.-3 Mithun Murmu (iv) P.W.-4 Lakhan Murmu, informant of this case (v) P.W.-5 Shakuntala Devi (vi) P.W.-6 Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak (vii)P.W.-7 Leelawati Devi (viii) P.W.-8 Ramdhan Murmu (xi)P.W.-9 Umesh Prasad Yadav 8. The following documentary evidences were exhibited by the prosecution:- Exhibit-1- Signature of P.W.1 on written report Exhibit-2 written report Exhibit- 2/1 Signature of P.W.-3 on written report Exhibit- 2/2 and 2/3 Signature of P.W.-4 and Sanjay Soren on written report Exhibit-3 Postmortem report Exhibit-4 and 4/1 Signature of P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 on inquest report Exhibit-5 Signature of S.I. of formal F.I.R. Exhibit-6 Inquest report. 9. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter Shital Manjhi was examined as D.W.-1, the Trial Court thereafter convicted under Section 302/201 of IPC. 10. The Trial Court after completion of the prosecution evidence examined this appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the parties, convicted this appellant under sections 302/201 of IPC. 11.
Decision
Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 17. We had requested Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, the learned counsel and appointed her as learned Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. Considering her assistance, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay remuneration of Rs.7,500/- to Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, the learned Amicus Curiae. 18. Let the Trial Court record be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment. (Ananda Sen, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 28/10/2024 NAFR /R.S./ Cp 03. 5