JAGDISH MANDAL @ JAGESHWAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is by the solitary accused who had been put up on trial and was convicted by the impugned judgment dated 03.09.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-9, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 243 of 2003/21 of 2004( State v.Jagdish Mandal @ Jageshwas Mandal) under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to imprisonment for life but without the mandatory fine. In the appeal the appellant has not been granted bail and has therefore remained in jail for a period of six years since filing of this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution story is that the accused had married the daughter of one Bholo Mandal and had one son and one daughter from the said marriage. After the death of his wife, the accused married the informant about eight years prior to the date of the incident. There was some dispute regarding dowry, because of which the informant had instituted a criminal case against the accused because of which the accused remained in jail for some time. The accused had also filed a criminal case against the parents of the informant. On the date of incident i.e. 01.04.2003 there was date fixed in the Court in two criminal cases because of which the accused and the informant reached the court at about 9 a.m. The informant had her six months old female daughter in her lap. The accused and the deceased met in the Court. The accused asked her to withdraw her case. The accused also asked her to hand over his daughter to him, but the informant told the accused that the child would be handed over to him only after she had grown-up. Thereafter the accused took the child away from the informant forcibly. The informant, thereafter, found the child in his lap after two hours. The accused had a plastic bottle with nipple with him and told the informant that he had fed milk to the baby. The baby was not moving and the informant apprehended that the baby had been killed by the accused. The accused threatened the informant with divorce after killing her daughter. On this basis, the informant claimed that the accused had administered poison with milk to the baby which resulted the death of the baby. The F.I.R. or the Fard Beyan of the informant as recorded in the Civil Court at 2.45 p.m. on 01.04.2003. A case was registered under section 302/328 Indian Penal Code After investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted and ultimately convicted by the impugned judgment.

(3.) The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The first and fore-most factor in the case of circumstantial evidence to be examined is the motive for the offence. Apparently the motive set-up is a grudge which the accused had against the informant who had got him sent to jail and who was contesting the case against the accused. But there was no grudge against the child who was daughter of the accused himself. There is no allegation that prior to the incident the accused had told or shown any animosity towards the child. In fact, on the own showing of the star witness P.W.1 that is the informant, the accused had asked to be handed over the child , which prima facie would indicate some attachment towards the child on the part of the accused. It is also natural for any father to have attachment to his child. Even the mother of the child had assured that the child would be handed-over to the accused later in due course when the child grows up. Thus there does not appear to be any motive for killing the child. Further, and perhaps more importantly is the manner in which the child is alleged to have been murdered by administering poison mixed with milk and fed to the child in a feeding bottle. From where this feeding bottle has come has not been disclosed. We think that it is most improbable that the accused would have brought the feeding bottle to court with him. Normally, feeding bottles are not available in court campus. It is not the case of the prosecution that the feeding bottle was also snatched by the accused along-with the child. Even if the feeding bottle had been snatched, from where the accused got the poison to mix it with the milk has not been disclosed. Normally, one does not carry poison in his pocket.