Bhuneshwar Ganjhu vs State Of Jharkhand

Shree Chandrashekhar, J

The sole appellant has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife, namely,

Kaushalya Devi.

In Sessions Case No. 307 of 2007, he has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code.

The informant of this case, namely, Pachhu Ganjhu is father of the deceased. On the basis of his fardbeyan which was recorded on 15.03.2007 at

11:30 hours at village-Kajri, Mandu (Charhi) P.S. Case No. 43 of 2007 was registered against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code. During the trial the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses; the informant is P.W.11. His wife and two brothers have also been examined by

the prosecution to prove the charge against the appellant.

In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that on receiving a telephonic information from the elder brother of his son-in-law that his daughter has

been killed he along with his wife and brothers have gone there. He has found the dead body of his daughter on a cot, froth coming from her nose and

injuries on the back of her head and neck. The family members of his son-in-law had confined him in a room and her family members were talking

that he has gone mad. Marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the appellant about two years back and after the marriage his daughter

continued to visit him. Except on one occasion when she complained to her grand mother-in-law that her husband commits marpit with her, she has

never made any complaint to him about her husband. His son-in-law once made demand for a motorcycle, but then, he never asked for it again. The

informant has raised a doubt that the appellant has killed his wife on account of some dispute.

In the court the informant has narrated a similar story about the occurrence. He has spoken about receiving information in the morning of

15.03.2007 about death of his daughter, his visit to village-Kajri and dead body of his daughter lying on a cot in her marital home. He has also stated

that after the marriage the appellant was demanding motorcycle and that was the reason he was fighting with his daughter. He has stated that when

he reached the house of the appellant the police had already arrived there.

The mother of the deceased, namely, Mundari Devi-P.W.7 and her uncle, namely, Ramlal Ganjhu-P.W.8 have also deposed about demand of

motorcycle. They alongwith Bhaneshwar Ganjhu-P.W.9 have seen the dead body of Kaushalya Devi. They have also seen injuries on her body.

The other prosecution witnesses; Prem Saw-P.W.1, Shambhu Saw-P.W.2, Bijulia Devi-P.W.3, Devnarayan Ganjhu-P.W.4, Dhaneshwar Ganjhu-

P.W.5 and Puran Ganjhu-P.W.6, have turned hostile.

Admittedly, the case against the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence; there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. In a catena of judgment

the Supreme Court has held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution must prove each circumstances by leading cogent,

convincing and consistent evidence and the chain of circumstances must be so complete that the only inference that can be drawn is that it was the

accused and accused alone who has committed the crime. In “Naseem Ahmed Vs. Delhi Administration†reported in (1974) 3 SCC 668, the

Supreme Court has held thus:

“10. This is a case of circumstantial evidence and it is therefore necessary to find whether the circumstances on which prosecution relies

are capable of supporting the sole inference that the appellant is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. The circumstances, in the first

place, have to be established by the prosecution by clear and cogent evidence and those circumstances must not be consistent with the

innocence of the accused. For determining whether the circumstances established on the evidence raise but one inference consistent with

the guilt of the accused, regard must be had to the totality of the circumstances. Individual circumstances considered in isolation and

divorced from the context of the overall picture emerging from a consideration of the diverse circumstances and their conjoint effect may by

themselves appear innocuous. It is only when the various circumstances are considered conjointly that it becomes possible to understand

and appreciate their true effect.â€​

The case set-up by the prosecution against the appellant is that on account of non-fulfillment of demand of motorcycle he was fighting with his wife

and finally in the night of 14.03.2007 he has assaulted her with tangi which proved fatal for her.

On demand of motorcycle, the prosecution has examined P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.11. All of them have spoken in unison that the appellant was

demanding motorcycle. A stray statement by the informant in his fardbeyan that his daughter never complained against her husband, in face of the

evidence of these witnesses, is inconsequential. The prosecution has proved demand of motorcycle non-fulfillment of which was motive for the crime.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence motive becomes an additional link to the chain of circumstances. No doubt, on the basis of motive

alone conviction of an accused for a serious offence like murder cannot be recorded, but then, in a case like the present one in which the prosecution

has proved demand of motorcycle, motive would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances. In “Surinder Pal Jain Vs. Delhi

Administration.â€​ reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 681, the Supreme Court has held as under:

“11. …… In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes pertinent significance as existence of the motive is an

enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning in such a case. The absence of motive, however, puts the court on its guard to

scrutinise the circumstances more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take place of legal proof.â€​

The dead body of Kaushalya Devi was found in her marital home and this fact has been spoken by all the witnesses. The doctor who has

conducted the post-mortem examination has found the following injuries on Kaushalya Devi:

(i) Sharp cut wound 4â€​ x 2â€​ muscle and bone deep with dark red clot over right occipital scalp extending towards neck.

(ii) Sharp cut wound 2â€​ x ½â€​ muscle deep with dark red clot over right supra scapular napping neck.

According to the doctor, the injuries on Kaushalya Devi were ante-mortem in nature and caused within 6 to 36 hours of the post-mortem

examination.

The aforesaid finding of the doctor corroborates the prosecution story that the appellant has committed murder of his wife in the intervening night

of 14/15.03.2007.

When dead body of a wife is found in her marital home, the husband must say something how his wife has died. In his examination under section

313 Cr.P.C, except a bald “noâ€, the appellant has not offered any explanation on death of his wife. He was present in the house is proved by the

prosecution. The witnesses have stated that he was caught by his family members and confined in a room. Of course, evasive reply of an accused or

failure to explain an incriminating circumstance during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C may not be the ground for his conviction, but it would

become an additional link in the chain of circumstances [refer: “State of Maharashtra Vs. Sureshâ€​ reported in (2000) 1 SCC 471].

The appellant has set-up a defence that he had gone to a party (sahiya) and in the mid-night when his wife had gone out of the house of their host

for easing herself she was killed by someone.

In support of his defence the appellant has examined Nageshwar Mahto-D.W.1 and Somiya Devi-D.W.2.

Somiya Devi in her cross-examination has stated that she has deposed in the court on the basis of what was told to her by the appellant. D.W.1

has stated that when Kaushalya Devi had gone outside his house and did not return for about 20-25 minutes they went outside and found her lying on

the ground. She had suffered head injuries and on the way she died. He has stated that when she was brought she was alive, but he does not say that

Kaushalya Devi has disclosed name of the assailants or the manner how she got injured. No other witness from the neighbourhood has been examined

to corroborate his evidence.

On such evidence, in our opinion, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that his defence is a probable one.

On the other hand, the prosecution has proved demand for motorcycle, death of Kaushalya Devi, her dead body lying in her marital home and

motive.

In our opinion, the aforesaid proved circumstances complete the chain of circumstances and it is so complete that it excludes every hypothesis of

innocence of the appellant.

The above being the factual scenario, we find that the prosecution has proved the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the

appellant.

In the result, finding no infirmity in the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2010 and order of sentence of R.I for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- dated

18.12.2010 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code passed against the appellant in Sessions Case No. 307 of 2007, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 124

of 2011 is dismissed.

The Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Ms. Darshana Podder Mishra, the learned Amicus, who has prepared meticulous notes on

prosecution evidence and produced copies of the judgments.

The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus as per Notification dated 23.11.2017.

Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through ‘FAX’.

Let lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.