KALAWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lohadaga PS Case No. 26 of 2001 was lodged against Devendra Sahu and Kalawati Devi for committing murder of Urmila Devi in furtherance of their common intention. They were put on trial on the charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and found guilty for the said offence by the judgment dated 18.08.2012. In ST No. 55 of 2003, the appellants are convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code with default stipulation to undergo further imprisonment of RI for six months for Devendra Sahu and SI for six months for Kalawati Devi (there appears a typing error, a writer's nightmare, in sentencing of Kalawati Devi as her sentence reads as SI for life).

(2.) A chowkidar in the village gave information to the police about murder of Urmila Devi in her matrimonial house. On 30.03.2001, at about 01:30 PM, fardbeyan of Bishun Mahli was recorded by Lalit Mohan Pandit, SI of Lohardaga police station at the house of the deceased. The informant has stated that Devendra Sahu developed illicit relationship with Kalawati Devi and both started living at Ranchi as husband and wife. There were quarrel between Devendra Sahu and Urmila Devi for that reason. Urmila Devi had filed a case in the Court against her husband and was living at her parents' place. About 10 days ago Urmila Devi came to village Gudi and with counsel of the villagers she was asked to live in a separate room in her matrimonial house. In the night of 29.04.2001, at about 11:30 PM, the informant came to know about murder of Urmila Devi by the accused with a sharp cutting weapon whereupon he visited the house of Devendra Sahu and saw the dead body of Urmila Devi; the accused had fled away. The informant has further stated that he kept a watch over the dead body in the night and in the morning by the time he could inform the police Darogaji arrived there and recorded his statement. In the trial the prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses out of which six co-villagers including the chowkidar did not support the prosecution. The daughter of the victim who is a child witness, mother of the victim and father of the victim have supported the prosecution. PW8, a co-villager of the deceased who lived in village Merlay, has stated about panchayati. PW9, the inquest witness has deposed in the Court that the police took his signature on a blank paper. PW11, a seizure witness has also stated that he signed on a blank paper and in his presence blood-soaked soil was not seized. PW13-Lalit Mohan Pandit is the investigating officer of this case.

(3.) Pw12-Dr. Lakshman Mandal who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of Urmila Devi found five antemortem injuries caused by hard and sharp substance and in his opinion cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to cutting of blood vessels (excess bleeding) about 22 hrs. to 24 hrs. from the time of postmortem examination.