GUNA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment dated 10th May, 2001 passed by Sri Abdul Samad, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj in Sessions Trial no. 50 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted u/s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and further to under go R/l for two years u/s. 201 I.P.C. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Initially, a U.D. case no. 16 of 1988 dated 13th August, 1988 was registered on the fard beyan of the present accused but later on, in course of investigation, when the concerned I.O. prepared the inquest report of the dead -body and received post mortem report, a case of murder u/s. 302/ 201 I. P.C. was registered against the accused on basis of self F.I.R. (Exhibit -3) of the I.O.

(2.) IN his fard beyan, accused stated that he was married with the daughter of one Banandhi Mahto, namely, Deomatiya Devi. One daughter and one son had been born from his said wife. The age of the daughter was four years and that of the son was 6 to 7 months at the time of occurrence. It was reported that his wife was suffering from mental disease and at one time, she tried to commit suicide by hanging herself. Therefore, he sent his wife to his sasural but after sometimes, he brought her to his house. He further reported that a day before the alleged occurrence in the evening, both of them returned to their house after working in their field and his wife told him to play with the baby but he refused as he was tired. This led to a hot altercation between them. Thereafter, at about 12 midnight, he (accused) had gone to jungle for grazing his she -buffalo. When he returned to his house, he did not find his wife in the house. Thereafter, he and his father started searching her and saw the dead -body of the deceased lying in a village well. According to the accused, the deceased, due to hot altercation, left the house in the night and committed suicide after jumping into the well. On the above fard beyan of the accused, the police registered the alleged U.D. case but in course of investigation, after the dead -body of the deceased was taken out from the well, at time of preparing inquest report of the dead -body, which created suspicion in his mind that the deceased did not commit suicide rather she was murdered and thrown in the well. Furthermore, the I.O. found that the dead -body was of two days earlier. She was murdered and thrown in well in order to destroy the evidence of the murder. His suspicion was strengthened by the medical report which disclosed that the deceased dead -body contained several ante mortem injuries and she died, due to haemorrhage and shock. Her death was homicidal and had taken place in between 48 to 96 hours. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the I.O. came to the conclusion that it was not a case of suicide rather it was a case of murder and as such he filed his written report to the concerned Officer -in -Charge of the Police Station for instituting a ease of murder against the accused. Accordingly, the instant case was registered against the accused. On the basis of written F.I.R., the police also drew up a formal F.I.R. (Exhibit -I) to that effect. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet u/s. 302/201 I.P.C. against the accused. In course of trial, prosecution produced altogether 10 witnesses in order to substantiate the charges, framed against the accused. P.W. 1, Murari Ram, is a formal witness, who proved the writing of the Officer -in -Charge of Manika P.S. on the formal F.I.R.; P.W. 2, Banandhi Mahto, father of the deceased, Deomatiya Devi; P.W. 3, Dr. Narendra Kumar Misar, who conducted post -mortem Bulaki Ram Versus Jatru Mahali examination on the dead -body of the deceased and found some ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased; P.W. 4, Mithu Prasad Sahu, is a formal witness, who proved the writing of S.I., Surya Narayan; P.W. 5, Musafir Yadav and P.W. 6, Muni Mistry, both are witnesses to the inquest report; P.W. 7, Sukhru Mahto, he has been tendered; P.W. 8, Chitranjan Pandey, is a formal witness, who proved the writing of S.I. on the charge sheet; P.W. 9, Samodhi Yadav, he is uncle of the deceased, who stated that Ram Brichh had informed him that his daughter -in -law, Deomatiya Devi had fled away from her sasural. Thereafter, on suspicion, he along with one person went to the sasural and found the dead -body of the deceased lying in the well. P.W. 10, Nandish Yadav, who is a cousin of the deceased, stated that he was informed by Ram Brichh that the deceased fled away from her sasural and during the course of search, the dead -body was found in the well. He further stated that the accused, Guna Mahto used to assault the deceased. In the cross -examination, he stated that in presence of police, the dead -body was recovered from well.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the intention to cause murder; there is no eye witness. The chain is not complete to hold the accused guilty for the charges on the basis of so -called circumstantial evidence. Learned A.P.P., refuting the argument, has submitted that there are circumstances to prove the charge of murder against the accused, such as: