Deoki Mosomat @ Dewki Devi, widow of late Kuldeep Paswan, r/o Hendlaso, PO & v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Govind Manjhi, s/o Bhola Manjhi, r/o Hendlaso, PO
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Acquittal Appeal No.62 of 2020 Deoki Mosomat @ Dewki Devi, widow of late Kuldeep Paswan, r/o Hendlaso, PO & PS-Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga …... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Govind Manjhi, s/o Bhola Manjhi, r/o Hendlaso, PO & PS-Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga …... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellant For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, APP
Decision
O R D E R 11th May 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. This acquittal appeal has been filed by Deoki Mosomat who is the informant of Sadar (Town) PS Case No.381 of 2015 to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 28th January 2020 passed in Sessions Trial No.252 of 2016 by which Govind Manjhi has been acquitted of the charge under sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On the basis of the written report of the informant who is the mother of Manju Kumari, Sadar (Town) PS Case No.381 of 2015 has been lodged on 26th June 2015 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Govind Manjhi. However, after the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against Govind Manjhi under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. To prove the charge against the aforesaid offence, the prosecution has produced 14 witnesses out of whom the informant is PW7. 4. The following documents have been laid in evidence by the prosecution: (i) Exhibit-1 – signature of witness on Panchnama (ii) Exhibit-2 – Forwarding report (iii) Exhibit-3 Signature of witness on formal FIR (iv) Exhibit-4 -Challan of U.D Case No.13/13 (v) Exhibit-5 – Inquest report 5. The learned trial Judge has scrutinized the prosecution evidence 2 Acq. Appeal No.62 of 2020 in paragraph no.27 of the judgment under challenge in the following manner: “27. From the scrutiny of evidence available on record, I find that PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 are all hearsay witnesses and they have clearly stated to this effect during their cross examination that they have deposed the fact what they were told by someone or by the informant. Similar is the version of PW-4. However, all these witnesses have stated that the deceased was heard to have received burnt injuries in her quarter at Police Line, Daltonganj while serving as a Lady Police Constable. It has also come from the mouths of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 that the accused used to frequent the quarter of the deceased. As far as PW-5 is concerned, she is a witness from near the place of occurrence being a lady constable who at the relevant time was also residing at Police Line, Daltonganj and has stated that on 12.12.2013 the deceased received burn injuries and the witness PW-5 being on duty took the deceased to Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj, RIMS, Ranchi and Deokamal Hospital, Ranchi. She has also stated that Govind Manjhi used to reside with the deceased but there is nothing to show in the evidence of PW-5 that the accused was present at the relevant time when the deceased caught fire. The evidence of PW-6 is not much to the help of the case of prosecution rather it goes against the very case and charge against the accused for the reason that P.W-6 in clear words has stated that the death of the deceased was accidental due to burst of cylinder while the deceased was cooking food. This witness was not turned hostile and her version was not challenged by the prosecution and in this manner the evidence of PW-6 remains intact. PW-9, 10 & 11 are hostile witnesses who were proposed by the prosecution to depose that the deceased attempted suicide for burning herself as she was in love with the accused or some police constable and the accused objected to the same being adopted son of the informant and thus being the brother of the deceased. However, these three hostile witnesses did not support the prosecution by giving the proposed evidence. They have turned hostile and have not supported the case of prosecution. Rather, they have shown their ignorance about the occurrence.” 6. The powers of the appellate Court to interfere with the judgment of acquittal has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments including “Madan Lal v. State of J&K” (1997) 7 SCC 677. 7. The charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code necessarily involves the Act of abetment as defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: 107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by 3 Acq. Appeal No.62 of 2020 wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. 9. The expression “abetment” has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which lays three modes of abetment viz. (i) instigation, (ii) engagement with one or more other person or persons in conspiracy for the doing of that thing and (iii) intentional aids by any act or illegal omission of the doing of that thing. In “Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana” (2019) 17 SCC 301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there must be a proof of abetment of suicide direct or indirect of incitement to the commission of suicide. The allegation against Govind Manjhi is that on 11th December 2013 he had a quarrel with his cousin sister and that he tried taking advantage of her being alone and on protest the accused sprinkled kerosene oil on the deceased and set her on fire. 10. In “Rajesh v. State of Haryana” (2020) 15 SCC 359 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. (See Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.)” 11. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the testimony of PW13 to lay support to the prosecution story that the act of Govind Manjhi would fall under one of the categories mentioned under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act puts no restriction on any witness except the person whom the Court finds unable to give rational answers by reason of his tender years, extreme old age or decease, whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same kind. It appears that after testing the intellect of PW13 her evidence was recorded in the Court. However, this witness has admitted in her cross-examination that after a quarrel between the deceased and Govind Manjhi she had gone to bed. Therefore, PW13 is also not an eyewitness who could have informed the Court under what circumstance the deceased had suffered burn injuries in 4 Acq. Appeal No.62 of 2020 the midnight of 11th December 2013. 13. In “Madan Lal” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the essence of the decisions of the Supreme Court is that the appellate Court should examine the evidence in a particular case and the reasons recorded by the trial Judge for acquitting the accused and only upon being satisfied that there are sufficient materials on record and the reasons assigned by the trial Judge is quite unreasonable the High Court should interfere with an order of acquittal. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstance in the case, finding no infirmity in the judgment of acquittal dated 28th January 2020 passed in Sessions Trial No.252 of 2016, Acquittal Appeal No.62 of 2020 is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: 11th May 2023 Sudhir/NAFR