EDWARD BHENGRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the sole appellant under Ss. 302, 201 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dtd. 9/10/2018 and order of sentence dtd. 11/10/2018, whereby the sole accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.50,000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and in case of default in payment of fine he has to undergo S.I. for one year, the appellant further sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.10,000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 of IPC and in case of default in payment of fine he has to undergo S.I. for two months, the appellant further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two twelve years with fine of Rs.10,000.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 376 of IPC and in case of default in payment of fine he has to undergo S.I. for two months.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire case is based on circumstances. Since there are no eye witness to the occurrence and the circumstances are also not complete and proved by the prosecution, the appellant could not have been convicted. As per him, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was taken to the hospital, but the prosecution has not proved the aforesaid fact. The driver of the vehicle which carried the dead body was also not examined. As per him it is also surprising that when a person has been taken to hospital and the Doctor found her dead, why the Doctor did not inform the police and not kept the body. Further, the circumstances according to the appellant is also very weak to convict him. He further submits that there are no material to convict the appellant under Sec. 376 of the IPC. No FSL report has been produced to suggest that rape was committed. It is his contention that only on mere assertion by the informant and others, this appellant has been convicted under Sec. 376 of IPC without any evidence, which is absolutely illegal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State submits that admittedly the deceased was with this appellant, thus, the appellant has the responsibility to disclose as to what actually had happened and how she died. Admittedly, she stayed with this appellant at night, when it is alleged that she felt ill and was taken to the hospital. As per the doctor she was brought dead. Considering the aforesaid facts it is the appellant, who has to explain the circumstances of the death of the deceased, which he has failed thus, the Court has correctly convicted the appellant. He further submits that the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem has opined that death is due to asphyxia, as a result of pressure over neck. Since the appellant was with the deceased all along, he is the only person to commit the said act. Thus, the State submits that the appellant has been correctly convicted.