Kashi Prasad Das v. …
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 848 of 2017 Against the judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2017 and order of sentence dated 20.02.2017 passed by Shri Ravi Ranjan, learned Additional Sessions Judge-Vth, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 2011. Kashi Prasad Das. -------- Versus …..Appellant The State of Jharkhand. ….Respondent For the Appellant For the Respondent -------- : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. -------- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH -------- C.A.V. On 22.02.2023 Pronounced on_5/04/2023 Heard Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2017 and order of sentence dated 20.02.2017 passed by Shri Ravi Ranjan, learned Additional Sessions Judge-Vth, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under section 201 IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Chandra Mehra in which it has been stated that the marriage of his daughter Prem The prosecution case arises out of a written report submitted by Satish Lata Devi was solemnized nine years back as per Hindu rites and customs with Kashi Prasad Das. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born. It has been alleged that in the recent past, his daughter was being tortured by her inlaws, for which he had tried to pacify the dispute about 15 days back. The brother inlaw of his daughter had recently married and Kashi Prasad Das had established an illicit relationship with his sister inlaw. It has been alleged that this illicit relationship was objected by his daughter-Prem Lata Devi, at which on 21.12.2010 at about 8 P.M., Kashi Prasad Das, Tikait Das, the wife of Tikait Das, Belu Das, the wife of Belu Das, Jai Prakash Das and Pradeep Das by hatching a conspiracy had brutally assaulted his daughter and threw the dead body in the well. His niece had informed 2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 848 of 2017 him, after which the police was intimated and the body was taken out from the well. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sarwan P.S. Case No. 166 of 2010 was instituted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 120B/34 IPC against seven named accused persons. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against Kashi Prasad Das while investigation was kept pending against four accused persons and two of the accused namely Jai Prakash Das and Pradeep Das were exonerated. After cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 250/11. Charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 302/201/34 IPC, which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. its case. The prosecution has examined as many as fourteen witnesses in support of P.W-1-Urmila Devi is the cousin sister of the deceased-Prem Lata Devi. She has stated that the marriage of Prem Lata Devi was solemnized with Kashi Das about nine years back. At about 8 P.M., Kashi Das and his mother had come in search of Prem Lata Devi to her house. She had replied that Prem Lata Devi had not come to her house at which they returned back but once again they had come around midnight in search of Prem Lata Devi, which evoked the same response from her. At about 7 A.M, there was a talk in the village that the dead body of Prem Lata Devi was found in a well. She had informed about the same to her uncle- Satish Chandra Mehra. In cross-examination, she has deposed that the distance between her matrimonial house and that of Prem Lata Devi is about half a kilometer. She has stated that the deceased was not a frequent visitor to her house. P.W-2-Pradeep Mehra has stated that the incident is of 28.12.2010 and he was in his house. The marriage of his sister Prem Lata Devi was solemnized with Kashi Prasad Das about ten years back. His sister used to be subjected to assault by her inlaws. He has stated that the husband of Prem Lata Devi was having an illicit relationship with his sister in law. His cousin sister had informed that the dead body of Prem Lata Devi was found in the well. He and several persons went to Chharhara village where he found the presence of the police who were taking out the dead body from the well. When the dead body was taken out, he found the eyes damaged and there were burn marks on her face. He had put his signature in the inquest report, which was proved and marked as Ext-1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that except seeing the dead body being taken out from the well no other incident was witnessed by him. P.W-3-Parwati Devi is the mother of the deceased Prem Lata Devi. Her 3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 848 of 2017 marriage was solemnized about ten years back at village-Chharhara with Kashi Das. Initially, her daughter was treated well at her matrimonial house and after the marriage of her brother in law-Belu Das, her in laws started torturing her. Kashi Das had an illicit relationship with the wife of Belu Das. Her daughter had come to her house and had disclosed everything. To pacify the situation, the husband of this witness had gone to the matrimonial house of Prem Lata Devi. After fifteen days, her niece informed her that Prem Lata Devi has become traceless, at which she and her family members went to the matrimonial house of Prem Lata Devi. Her family members had seen the dead body of her daughter in the well. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had not witnessed any occurrence. P.W-4-Bam Shanker Mehra is the cousin brother of the deceased. He has stated that the marriage of Prem Lata Devi was solemnized with Kashi Prasad Das. On 22.12.2010, his uncle Satish Chandra Mehra was informed over mobile that his daughter was murdered and her body thrown in the well. On receiving such information, he and his family members left for village Chharhara. They found a crowd near the well situated besides the house of Kashi Prasad Das and the Chowkidar was taking out the body from the well. There were burn injuries on the face and both the eyes were found damaged. There were signs of tying the legs with rope. He had heard that Kashi Prasad Das had an illicit relationship with his sister in law, which was objected by Prem Lata Devi and the same was the cause of murder. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the distance from his place to Chharhara village is about 15-20 kilometers. He received the information about the incident at 5 A.M. He had come to know about the illicit relationship between Kashi Prasad Das and his sister inlaw from his wife. It is not a fact that Prem Lata Devi died due to falling in the well. P.W-5-Jai Shanker Mehra is the cousin brother of the deceased-Prem Lata Devi whose marriage was solemnized with Kashi Prasad Das. On the date of the incident, he had gone to Deoghar. He received information over phone that Prem Lata Devi has been murdered. When he had reached village-Chharhara, he could not find anyone. He was told that the body has been sent to Deoghar for postmortem. When he had seen the dead body, he had found injuries on the same. P.W-6-Satish Chandra Mehra is the informant of the case and the father of the deceased. He has stated that the incident is of 21.12.2010. The marriage of his daughter Prem Lata Devi was solemnized with Kashi Prasad Das about nine years back. Initially, she was kept well in her matrimonial house but after the marriage of her brother inlaw, she was subjected to torture. His daughter used to 4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 848 of 2017 object to the illicit relationship of her husband with his sister inlaw. About fifteen days prior to the occurrence, he had gone to the matrimonial house of his daughter and had pacified the situation. He has stated that his daughter was assaulted by her husband and inlaws and her body was thrown in the well. When he had gone to the matrimonial house of his daughter, he had found her dead body, which bore marks of injury. He has identified his signature in the inquest report, which has been proved and marked as Ext-1/1. He has proved his signature in the written application, which has been marked as Ext-2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not witnessed any occurrence. The last time his daughter had come to his place she had stayed for 2-3 months before retuning back to her matrimonial house. P.W-7-Rinku Kumar Das and P.W-8-Chhotu Lal Das did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W-9-Chanchala Debya and P.W-10-Karu Das have also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W-11-Manohar Das has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W-12-Dr. Satish Thakur was posted as a Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and on 23.12.2010, a Medical Board was constituted, which conducted postmortem on the dead body of Prem Lata Devi and had found the following:- External Examination Rigor mortis present in all four limbs. The following ante mortem injuries were found on the body. (1) Lacerated wound 1 ½ x 1 ½ skin deep in front of left corner of left eye. (2) Abrasion ½” x ½” right side of right eyebrow. (3) Abrasion 1”x1” left ankle medialy. (4) Abrasion 3”x1” on left leg anteriorly. Internal Examination (1) On dissection of the scalp-Fracture of left frontal bone found with blood and blood clots. (2) Fracture of nasal bone was found. Chest, Heart-right chamber contains same blood, left chamber empty. Lungs-normal, no collection seen in lungs. Abdomen-liver, spleen, kidney are intact. Urinary bladder empty, uterus-small and non gravid.” The cause of death was opined to be head injury and its complications by a hard and blunt substance. He has proved the postmortem report, which has been marked as Ext-3. 5 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 848 of 2017 In cross-examination, he has deposed that all the injuries are possible on account of fall on hard and rough surface. P.W-13-Dr.Anand Vardhan was posted as a Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and on 23.12.2010, he in his capacity as a member of the Medical Board had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Prem Lata Devi. He has identified his signature in the postmortem report, which has been marked as Ext-3/1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that all the fractures found on the dead body of the deceased may be caused due to fall on a hard surface. P.W-14-Manoj Kumar Mahto was posted as Officer Incharge of Sarwan P.S. and on 22.12.2010, he had received a written report from Satish Chandra Mehra. He has proved the endorsement in the written report, which has been marked as Ext-2/1. On the basis of the written report, Sarwan P.S. Case No. 166 of 2010 was instituted. He has proved the inquest report, which has been marked as Ext-1/2. After taking over the investigation, he had recorded the restatement of the informant and had also recorded the statement of Pradeep Mehra. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village-Chharhara in the house of Kashi Prasad Das where the incident of assault is said to have taken place. He had recorded the statements of Bam Shankar Mehra, Urmila Devi, Chanchala Debya, Parwati Devi, Chhotu Lal Das, Jai Shankar Mehra, Karu Das, Rinku Das, Manohar Das, Gangadhar Das and Pushpa Devi and all had supported the prosecution case. He had obtained the postmortem report and had submitted chargesheet against Kashi Prasad Das while keeping the investigation pending against the rest accused persons. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seized any incriminating articles from the place of occurrence. He had also not prepared the inquest report. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his involvement in the occurrence. 6. The defence has examined one witness. D.W-1-Arjun Das has stated that the relationship of Prem Lata Devi with her inlaws was cordial. He has stated that Kashi Das had told him that Prem Lata Devi had gone to fetch water but she had slipped and fell down. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of suspicion. It has been submitted that the deceased had accidentally slipped and had fallen in the well which led to the injuries suffered by her and even P.W-12 and P.W-13 have not ruled out the possibilities of the injuries suffered on account of striking a hard and rough surface 6 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 848 of 2017 8. Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A. P.P., has submitted that the appellant is the husband of the deceased and he has failed to explain the circumstances which led to the death of his wife and the injuries suffered by her. It has further been submitted that the evidences of the witnesses establishes that the deceased was regularly subjected to torture by the appellant and her inlaws. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the Lower Court Records. 10. The appellant is the husband of the deceased. It is the case of the defence that the death was accidental on account of slipping and falling in the well due to which she had received injuries on her person. This claim of the defence is not digestible simply on account of the fact that if at all it was a case of drowning, the findings of the postmortem report would have reflected so. The postmortem report reveals that the scull as well as the nasal bone of the deceased were found fractured and there were lacerated wounds and abrasions on her face and leg. Although the defence has elicited from the cross-examination of P.W-12 and P.W- 13 that such injury could be possible due to fall on hard and rough surface but it is not the case of the defence that the deceased had fallen on a hard surface as it has nowhere been stated that the well was dry. No signs of drowning were found on the body of the deceased, which negates the case of the defence. Moreover it appears from the evidence of P.W-3 and P.W-6 that the intensity of torture upon Prem Lata Devi had gone up after the marriage of her brother inlaw-Belu Das and efforts by P.W-6 to pacify the situation seems not to have yielded any positive effect as the subsequent incident suggests. The dead body of the deceased was found in a well which as per P.W-14 is situated at a distance of 50-60 yards from the house of the appellant. The appellant was bestowed with the special knowledge about how the deceased died but in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, he has failed to discharge his burden as envisaged under section 106 of the Evidence Act. 11. We may at this juncture profitably quote from the case of Sabitri Samantaray Vs. State of Odisha reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 673 with respect to the features of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which reads as under:- “18. Section 106 of the Evidence Act postulates that the burden of proving things which are within the special knowledge of an individual is on that individual. Although the Section in no way exonerates the prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not on the prosecution. If the accused had a different intention than the facts are specially within his knowledge which he must prove. 7 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 848 of 2017 19. Thus, although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events. [See Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681]” 12. The other incriminating feature appears to be the attempts made by the appellant in depicting a picture that the deceased was indeed missing from her house. This would be evident from the testimony of P.W-1 who has stated that on the date of the incident the appellant and his mother had twice come over to her place in search of Prem Lata Devi. Not once did they inform the parents of the deceased or had enquired as to whether she had gone to her parents’ house, which was not at a considerable distance from the place of occurrence. 13. The learned trial court has considered all aspects of the case while convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable under section 302/201/34 IPC vide judgment of conviction dated 17.2.2017 and order of sentence dated 20.2.2017 and there being no reasons to conclude otherwise this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) (Ambuj Nath, J) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 5th/April, 2023 Rakesh/NAFR