Anup Kumar Shah vs State of Jharkhand

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.4.2005 and order of sentence dated 25/4/2005 passed by the 1st Addl Sessions Judge, FTC Lohardaga, in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the appellant having been found guilty for committing murder of his mother was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.7.2002 at about 5.30 p.m. when Lalita Devi, wife of the informant Dhananjoy Sah (P.W. 3) had gone to "gohal" (a place for keeping cattle and fodders) for taking firewoods, the informant heard the shouting of his wife coming from the "gohal". On hearing alarm, when the informant went there, he saw the appellant (his son) inflicting chhura blows upon his wife. He tried to catch hold of him, but the appellant fled from there. Meanwhile, the villagers also reached there who saw injuries on the person of the wife of the informant who died there.

On the next day (20.7.2002) at 5.00 a.m., a written report was submitted upon which a formal FIR (Ext. 3) was drawn by Jai Krishna (PW6), the then officer-in-charge of Bhandara Police Station. He himself took up investigation of the matter and came to the place of occurrence where he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext 2/2). He inspected the place of occurrence and then sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Shanbhu Nath Choudhary (PW7) who found the following injuries on the person of the deceased.

(a) incised wound at the upper lip on the left side, measuring 2" in length passing through and through the whole thickness of upper lip and sharply splitting it with clotted blood at the margin;

(b) incised wound on the lower lip in opposition to injury on upper lip 1" in length and splitting lower lip in similar fashion with clotted blood;

(c) four parallel incised wounds at the super external notch; each injury spread about 1 cm apart and 3" x 1/2" vertebra deep with clotted blood in the depth of the wound. On dissection the internal tissues, muscles, trachea, oesophagus were found incised at multiple sites with one such wound approaching to the apices of both lungs;

(d) On examination of thorax, the second left rib was found fractured and there was underlying haemothorax with clotted blood measuring 1 litre. Both lungs were found collapsed;

(e) On examination of abdomen, all the hollow viscera namely stomach, small and large intestines were found normal.

The doctor issued post-mortem examination report (Ext. 4) with an opinion that the death of the deceased was caused due to excessive blood loss and shock caused by injury No.(c) which was caused by some sharp cutting instrument driven with sufficient force to cause injury to major blood vessels of neck and thorax and trauma to airway.

After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant and when the case was committed to the court of sessions, the appellant was put on trial during which the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Of them PW1 a villager; PW3 Dhananjoy Sah (informant); PW8 Manju Kumari (sister); PW9 Reena Devi (wife) and PW10 Rambali Sah cousin of the appellant are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, who have testified that on hearing alarm when they went to the "gohal", they found the appellant inflicting injuries upon her mother with a chhura. PWs. 4, 5, 12 and 13 are hearsay witnesses, whereas PW2 and 11, brothers of the appellant, had seen the appellant fleeing from the "gohal" taking a chhura smeared in blood, in his hand.

The trial court having found the testimonies of the eye-witnesses trustworthy getting corroboration from the medical evidence, recorded the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant which is under challenge.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution in course of the trial came forward with five eye-witnesses, though as per the fardbeyan, it was only the informant (PW3) who had occasion to see the occurrence and thereby the learned trial court committed illegality in placing its reliance over other witnesses who though were not there at gohal at the time of occurrence, but have claimed to have seen the occurrence. It was further submitted that the appellant in any view of the matter, though not inflicted injuries upon his mother, but would not have intended to commit murder of his mother, but the trial court did not consider this aspect of the matter and thereby the trial court committed an illegality in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel in this regard submits that if murder was not intentional, then in the facts and circumstances, the appellant could not have been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

As against this, learned counsel for the State submits that this is a full-proof case where the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts that it was the appellant who committed murder of his mother and the evidence led by the prosecution goes to suggest that it was intentional and thereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence never warrants to be interfered with.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find from the written report submitted by the informant (PW3) that when the deceased, (the wife of the informant) had gone to "gohal" for taking firewood, the informant heard his wife shouting at gohal. Upon it, when the informant went there, he found the appellant inflicting injuries upon his wife by chhura upon which he tried to catch hold of his son (appellant), but he fled from there after which the villages came over there. When the informant was examined as PW3, he did testify in the same manner. However, he also did testify that while the appellant was inflicting injuries upon the deceased, PWs. 1 and 2 reached over there, but the appellant fled from there. PW1 in his evidence has testified that he resides in the neighbourhood of the informant and when he went to "gohal" after hearing shouting, he saw the appellant inflicting injuries, whereas PW2 Bhuneshwar Sah, has testified that after hearing the alarm when he came out of his house, he saw the appellant fleeing with the blood stained chhura in his hand. In that event, the testimonies of the other witnesses such as PW9 and 10 claiming themselves to be the eye-witnesses do not appear to be correct; rather, in the facts and circumstances, they seem to have come to the gohal after the occurrence. But so far as PW8, the sister of the appellant is concerned, she seems to have seen the occurrence as according to her, when her mother went to gohal to take firewood, she also followed her which fact has been supported even by PW3 (informant). She (PW8) has further testified that as soon as her mother and she reached at the gohal, the appellant who was there from before started inflicting injuries upon which the mother started shouting upon which the father came and tried to catch hold of the appellant, but he fled away. Under the circumstances, PW8 appears to be a natural witness. Similarly, PW1 who is the next door neighbour, claiming to have reached at the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and seeing the appellant inflicting the injuries, is worth acceptable. Thus, we do find that PWs. 1, 3 and 8 are trustworthy. Their testimonies get corroboration from the medical evidence as the doctor did find as many as four parallel incised injuries over the stomach of the deceased. Furthermore, the appellant, while was fleeing from gohal, was seen by PWs. 2 and 11 who was having a knife in his hand.

Further we do find that the prosecution has also come with a case that the appellant did commit such offence as earlier to the occurrence, the deceased (the mother of the appellant) had refused to part with rupees five hundred which fact has been testified by PW3. There has been no reason in absence of any material to contrary to disbelieve this point of the case of the prosecution. Under the circumstances, we do find that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Going further in the matter, we may record that the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that the appellant being son of the deceased may not have intended to commit her murder even if the mother had refused to part with the money, but this submission is against the evidence led by the prosecution whereby the medical evidence shows that as many as four parallel incised wounds were inflicted with chhura with all possible force. Had there been no intention on the part of the appellant to commit murder of his mother, he would not have inflicted as many as four injuries. Therefore, under the circumstances, the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is not acceptable.

Thus, we do not find any illegality with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is hereby affirmed.

In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.