Babu Nayak vs State Of Jharkhand

This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 18.08.2001 passed by learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No.75 of 2001, whereby the sole appellant was convicted under Sections 354 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 354 of IPC.

We have heard, Mr. Amitabh, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State at length.

As per the prosecution case, the informant, who is husband of the deceased was not in the house, he had gone to beat drums at village Birhu in the house of Mahavir Mahto. When he returned to his house, he could not find his wife. His daughter stated that as this appellant had tried to outrage her modesty, so to enquire about the matter and reason with this appellant, her mother (deceased) had gone to the house of this appellant. Since it was raining, the appellant did not go anywhere. The deceased did not return. The next day when search was made, her body was found near the boundary wall of Bhola Ganjhu situated on Shivala Khunti Road. There was sharp cut injury on the right side of the stomach and on right hand of the wife of the informant.

On the basis of the fardbeyan, Khunti P.S Case No.95 of 2000 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

After investigation police submitted chargesheet against the appellant and cognizance was taken. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 302 and 354 of IPC and the trial proceeded.

Altogether five witnesses have been examined in this case, who are as follows:-

(i) P.W.-1 Dr. Lalita Verma

(ii) P.W.-2 Malti Nayak

(iii) P.W.-3 Padum Devi

(iv) P.W.-4 Shobha Nayak, informant

(v) P.W.-5 Shri Paswan

The following documentary evidences were exhibited by the prosecution:-

Exhibit-1- Postmortem report

Exhibit-2 Fardbeyan

Exhibit- 3 Carbon copy of inquest report

Exhibit- 4 Signature on F.I.R.

The Trial Court after completion of the prosecution evidence examined this appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence, the Trial Court convicted this appellant under Sections 302 and 354 of IPC and sentenced as aforesaid.

After going through the evidence, we find that none of the witnesses are the eye witness to the occurrence. It is only P.W.-2 Malti Nayak, the daughter of the deceased and informant, who stated that the deceased had left her house for the house of this appellant to reason with him as to why he had tried to outrage the modesty of this witness.

P.W.-4 is the informant, who also stated that when he came to his house, his daughter had stated that the deceased had gone to the house of this appellant to reason with him on the issue of outraging the modesty of P.W.-2.

Thus, from the evidence of this witness, we find that deceased left the house stating that she is going to the house of this appellant. Save and except this evidence there is nothing against this appellant in this case. No one had seen the deceased on the road going towards the house of the appellant nor anyone had seen the deceased entering the house of the appellant.

The body was found next to the boundary wall of Bhola Ganjhu situated on Shivala Khunti Road. How the body reached there has also not been proved by the prosecution.

To prove the homicidal death, the prosecution has examined P.W.-1, who is the Doctor. He conducted the postmortem of the deceased and found the following injuries:-

(i)In right side of abdomen there was a penetrating injury about 2” x ½” small and large gut in several places. 5” long piece of small gut was found. Old clotted blood was present. Abdominal cavity was full of blood.

(ii)Abrasion in right wrist.

Even if death is homicidal, there is no legal evidence save and except the statement of P.W.-2 that too only to the effect that her mother (deceased) has left her home saying that she is going to the house of this appellant. Thus, in absence of any legal evidence, we are inclined to allow this criminal appeal.

Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal stands allowed by acquitting the appellant. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 18.08.2001 passed by learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No.75 of 2001 is set aside.

As this appellant is already on bail, he and his bailors are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds.

Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Considering the proper assistance of learned Amicus Curiae, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay remuneration of Rs.7,500/- to Mr. Amitabh, the learned Amicus Curiae.

Let the Trial Court Record be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.