Mukru @ Konda Bodra v. State of Jharkhand

examination of this witness fardbeyan, formal FIR, Inquest report of Jema Bodra, arrest memo of the appellant have been marked as Ext. 3/1, 3/2, 5, 6 and 7 respectively. He further deposed that he seized blood smeared sickle and blood soaked bed-sheet and prepared the seizure list and took the signature of witnesses, Sanjay Bari, Kurpa Bodra and S.I. Jangbahadur Page/3 Rai on identification, which has been marked as Ext. 8. He arrested the accused from Baisimbiya and recorded his confessional statement which has been marked as Ext.9. In cross-examination, he deposed that there was no eye witness of this case.

4. Some documentary evidences have also been produced and exhibited on behalf of the prosecution.

5. After closure of evidences, the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, in which he has pleaded not guilty. Appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence.

6. The Trial Court after going through the materials on record and also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has found the charge levelled against the appellant to be proved and, thereafter, sentenced him as aforesaid.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the informant (P.W. 1) has been declared hostile. She stated that she had not given any statement before the police about the murder of her daughter-in-law. Thus in view of her statement, the entire prosecution case even the FIR gets demolished. So far as P.W. 3 is concerned, admittedly he is not an eye witness to the occurrence. He had gone to the house and saw the dead body, once the murder had already committed. He further stated that it is P.W. 1 who had informed him that it is the appellant who had committed the murder of his wife. Similar is the statement of P.W. 4. Thus, there are no material to implicate this appellant in this case, thus, this appellant needs to be acquitted.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that even if the informant has become hostile that will not demolish the prosecution case as P.W.s 3 and 4 clearly stated that it is the informant who had disclosed before them that this appellant has committed the murder of the deceased. He further submitted that the medical evidence corroborates the statement and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place, thus the appellant's guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

9. We have gone through the record and evidences as well as impugned judgment. We find that this appellant is the husband of the deceased and son of P.W. 1. As per the FIR, an altercation had taken place Page/4 between this appellant and his wife in their house. At that time, the informant was in the adjacent house. At night, the appellant cut the throat of the deceased with sickle . On hearing the cry, the informant went to the house to the appellant, when this appellant disclosed before her that there was some altercation between the deceased and him, as a result of which, with sickle he cut the throat of the deceased. This informant while deposing as P.W. 1 became hostile.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bable @ Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh report in (2012) 11 SCC 181 in paragraph 14 has held that once the registration of FIR is proved by the police and the same is accepted on record by the Court and the prosecution establishes its case beyond reasonable doubt by other admissible cogent and relevant evidences, it will be impermissible for the Court to ignore the evidentiary value of the FIR. Similar is the case here. The FIR, which has been lodged by the informant has been proved. Though the informant has stated as a witness, that she has not given any statement before the police, but the I.O., who is P.W. 7 has clearly stated that it is this informant who has recorded her fardbeyan, which led to registration of the FIR. Fardbeyan was also exhibited by him. P.Ws. 3 and 4 also stated about registration of FIR by informant. Thus, once the registered fradbeyan has been exhibited, we have to see that as to whether there are other cogent and reliable evidence in support of the said fardbeyan. P.W. 3, though, he had not seen the occurrence, but he went to the house of the appellant and saw the dead body. He stated that it is the informant who had told him that the appellant has committed the murder of his wife with sickle. He further stated that when this statement was given by the informant, Sanjay Bari and other villagers were present. This Sanjay Bari was also examined as P.W. 4, who happens to be village Munda. He also stated that it is P.W. 1 who had narrated before him that it is the appellant who had committed the murder of the deceased by cutting her neck with sickle while she was sleeping. He also stated in his evidence that Surendra Gagrai, who is P.W. 3, was also present there. Thus the statement of P.Ws. 2 and 3 corroborates each other, both these witnesses stated that it is P.W. 1/informant who had stated that his son (appellant) confessed before her that he has murdered his wife.

11. So far as other circumstances are concerned, it is also the prosecution case that there was no other person present in the house save Page/5 and except the appellant and the deceased. It is also not the defence case that someone else has committed the murder of the deceased or were present in the house. The circumstances, clearly points towards the guilt of this appellant. In this case, on the facts, Section 103 of the Evidence Act is attracted, wherein the appellant has to explain the circumstances as to how the deceased died when the occurrence had taken in the room of the deceased when there was none other in the room except the appellant. Further immediately after the occurrence, as per the FIR, P.W. 1 reached and it is this appellant, who has confessed before P.W. 1 that he has committed the murder of the deceased. The informant also communicated the aforesaid fact to P.Ws. 3 and 4, who had deposed and corroborated the aforesaid fact. Further the doctor also found that sharp cutting wound present in upper part of neck extending from right angle to mandible and to left angle of mandible and the throat was cut; injuring larynx and trachea, oesophagi, great vessels, soft tissue with blood and blood clot. The Doctor also opined that this injury can be caused by sickle. The I.O. in his cross- examination, had stated that it is the informant who told him that the appellant has confessed before her that he has committed the murder of the deceased. The sickle was also recovered. Thus the FIR will not loose its evidentiary value, even if the informant (P.W.1)has become hostile, when the prosecution is able to prove and establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

12. Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the trial court was justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction dated 27.04.2017 and order of sentence dated

29.04.2017 passed by Sri Dinesh Rai, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge- III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Session Trial No. 203 of 2013 do not warrant any interference by this Court and, hence, it is affirmed.

13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. (ANANDA SEN, J.) (SUBHASH CHAND, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated: the 02nd April, 2024 NAFR/Anu/Cp.-3. Page/6