DEBANG DEHARI @ DEWAN DEHARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28th June, 2006, passed by the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 292 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the Court while acquitting the appellant for the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Dukhni Maharani and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I for life and further to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ with default clause to undergo S.I. for two months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as it appears from the first information report, is that the informant Sanju Maharani (PW6) and also Dukhni Maharani (deceased) had left home on 17/10/1999 in the evening for bringing water. At about 5.15 P.M they reached near a 'Nala' (a stream of water) where the deceased cleaned her Aluminium vessels and then both of them proceeded towards a well for taking water. Meanwhile, the appellant came there and caught hold of Dukhni Maharani and made her to fall on the ground and, thereafter, he committed rape upon her. While the appellant was committing such act, he threatened the informant to leave that place. Upon it, theinformant left the place but after coming to some distance she stood standing there and saw from there that the appellant after committing rape twisted the neck of Dukhni Maharani and then brought her to 'Nala' (stream of water) and forcibly put her head into stream of water as a result of which she died. Thereupon, the informant came home and told about the occurrence to her husband and other witnesses. Meanwhile, OfficerinCharge of Gopikander Police Station when received rumour that one lady has been killed, he came to the village and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Sanju Maharani at 5.00 A.M on 18/10/1999. Upon which a first information report was registered against the appellant and the matter was taken for investigation. During investigation, the Investigating Officer (PW7) recovered the dead body from the 'Nala' in presence of PWs 2 and 5. Thereafter, inquest report was prepared. Subsequently, the dead body was sent for Post Mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Sitaram Sah (PW1), who during Post Mortem examination did find lyrings and trachea full of mud. Both lungs were found expanded. The abdomen was full of muddy water. However, he did not find any sign of rape nor did he find spermatozoa in the pathological report. Accordingly, Post Mortem report (Ext.1) was issued with an opinion that the death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. At the same time, it was opined that no definite opinion can be given whether the deceased was raped or not?

(3.) AFTER completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant. When the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial, during which the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses, of them PWs 2 and 5 are the witnesses to recovery of the dead body and are also the witnesses to the inquest. PWs 3, 4 and 8 are the hearsay witnesses, who either testified that they came to know from the villagers about the deceasedbeing done to death by the appellant or from the informant PW6.