RASMUNI MARANDI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE appellant Rasmuni Marandi stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of her own Gotani, Dola Murmu in the night of 8th of May, 1995 inside her house and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life, by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 1995.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that informant Sutilal Hansda and his mother Dola Murmu were related with the appellant. The appellant stands prosecuted. According to the informant, he along with the deceased used to reside at the verandah of the appellant because of financial scarcity and health problem. On the fateful day, the husband of the appellant was seriously ill. The deceased was called by the appellant to help her in attending her husband inside the room. However, the husband of the appellant, Gadur Hansda died during the night at about 12.00. after which the appellant assaulted the deceased with back of Tangi alleging that she was dian and she has caused death of her husband. The informant could not resist as he was threatened to leave the place.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned trial Court believing upon the extra -judicial confession of the appellant has convicted her without taking into consideration the law on this point. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the appellant stressed that in absence of the informant, First Information Report itself was not proved. He further pointed out that village Chowkidar, which reported the matter to Police, has not been examined nor the investigating officer in this case. Therefore, in absence of the investigating officer and any confession recorded by P.W. 5 and P.W. G, reliance should not have been placed on the extra judicial confession. He further pointed out that the seizure list of the weapon of assault and inquest report have not been brought on record. He further pointed out that even if the prosecution version is accepted the appellant should not have been convicted under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code because of the fact that she assaulted the deceased having believed that she was a Dian causing death of her husband.