AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.
Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 6.07.1995 and Order of sentence dated 7.7.1995, passed by the learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in S.T. No.149 of 1992, whereby the sole appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, has been found
guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, he has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for life. Â
The dead body of the wife of the appellant was found in an agriculture field in the village Dikuloyong, P.S. Khunti, in the then district of Ranchi, on
11.9.1991, and the informant Jeet Munda, who is the father of the deceased lady, was informed about it by Dukhan Swanshi, Dhiraja Swansi and
other persons in the same night that the dead body of his daughter was lying in the field, whereupon, he went there and saw the dead body. The
FIR was lodged by the informant, the father of the deceased on 12.9.1991 at about 12 P.M., at the Police Station, wherein, he has stated that there
was love marriage between his daughter and accused Ghasi Ram Munda, and out of this wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter also, who died
after eight days of her birth. He has stated that the accused was in habit of assaulting the deceased and at one point of time, his daughter fled away
from her matrimonial home and came to his house. Thereafter, she was taken away by the accused on the assurance to keep her properly, but even
thereafter she was subjected to the same treatment by her husband. On 11.9.1991, at about 11 P.M., he was informed about the dead body his
daughter lying in agriculture field, whereupon, he went there and saw the dead body of his daughter by the side of the foot way in injured condition.Â
He stayed there for the whole night with the dead body and in the morning, he searched his son-in-law, but his son-in-law was not in the house and he
was informed that he had gone to tend the cattle. Thereafter, the villagers searched the accused in the forest, apprehended him and brought him to the
place of occurrence and he confessed before them that he had assaulted his wife to death, due to the fact that he had seen his wife in compromising
position with another person and thereafter, she was fleeing away towards her parents’ place, whom he chased and assaulted by balua (a sharp
cutting weapon), which he concealed in the house of his sister. On the basis of this information, Khunti P.S. Case No.89 of 1991, corresponding to
G.R. No.471 of 1991, was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Panel Code, against the sole accused, and investigation was taken
up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. Â
Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, and upon the accused’s pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, the prosecution examined
seven witnesses, including the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The I.O. has not been
examined in this case and as such, the FIR, the seizure list of the seizure of the blood stained soil and the inquest report were proved by a formal
witness P.W.-7 Shiv Charan Kalindi, and the same were marked Exts. 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-4
Dhiraj Swansi and P.W.-5 Dukhan Swansi, who had informed the informant about the dead body, have turned hostile on the point that the accused
had made any extra judicial confession in their presence. They have stated about the finding of the dead body of the deceased and have also stated
that the accused was brought there and he saw the dead body of his wife. They have turned hostile and not supported the fact that any extra
judicial confession was made by the accused in their presence. P.W.-2 Deva Munda has only proved his signature and the signature of other witness
on the inquest report and on the seizure list, which were marked Ext.-2 series.Â
P.W.-3 Jeet Munda, the father of the deceased and P.W.-6 Â Karan Singh, both of them have stated that they had seen the dead body of the
deceased. The accused was brought there and he had confessed his guilt before them stating that he had committed the murder of his wife. It
is   also apparent from the evidence of these witnesses that extra judicial confession was made by the accused in the presence of the
Chaukidar. Though, in the FIR, it is stated that the accused had confessed before them that he had committed the murder of the deceased due to
the fact that he had seen the deceased in compromising position with another person and thereafter, she was fleeing away and he chased her and
assaulted her, but this fact has not been stated by either of these witnesses in their evidence. P.W.-3 Jeet Munda has stated that the accused
confessed that he was not happy with the work of his wife, whereas, P.W.-6 Karan Singh has completely concealed this fact and has not disclosed
any reason for committing the murder, as allegedly disclosed in the extra judicial confession.  Â
P.W.-1 Dr. T.P. Vaishya had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 13.9.1991 and found three incised
wounds on the dead body, which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death of the deceased and he has proved the post-mortem report
to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.-1.Â
The accused has denied the evidence against him in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. No evidence, however, has been
adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, for the
offence as aforesaid. Â
Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court
below cannot sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, the case rests only on the alleged extra judicial confession made before P.W.-3 Jit Munda
and P.W.-6 Karan Singh. These witnesses have not given true text of the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused and have
concealed and changed the portions thereof. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the evidence of these witnesses would show that the
confessional statement was made before the Chaukidar and the confessional statement is not admissible in the eyes of law. It has also been pointed
out by learned counsel that the Chaukidar and the I.O. have not been examined in the case and though in the FIR, it is stated that the deceased also
disclosed where he had concealed the weapon of offence, but no witness has stated that the weapon of offence was recovered. Learned senior
counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring home charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and it is a fit
case, in which, the accused ought to have been given the benefits of doubt.Â
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that though there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, but
the accused himself confessed his guilt before the witnesses, which is fully supported by P.W.-3 Jeet Munda, the informant and father of the
deceased and P.W.-6 Karan Singh. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence of P.W.-1 Dr. T.P. Vaishya shows that the deceased had
suffered three incised wounds caused by sharp cutting weapon, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, and in that view of
the matter, the prosecution has been able to bring home charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.Â
Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that in the present case, there is no eyewitness to the
occurrence. The dead body of the deceased was found in an agriculture field and the only evidence against the appellant is that he had made extra
judicial confession that he had committed the murder of his wife. The said oral extra judicial confession has been proved by P.W.-3 Jeet Munda, the
informant and the father of the deceased, and P.W.-6 Karan Singh and the evidences of both these witnesses show that they have made substantial
changes in the alleged extra judicial confession. Though in the FIR, it is stated that the accused had disclosed the fact that he had seen the deceased in
compromising position with another person and thereafter, she started fleeing away and she was chased and assaulted, but P.W.-3 Jeet Munda, who
is the father of the deceased, has stated in his evidence that the accused disclosed that he was not happy with the work of his wife, whereas P.W.-6
Karan Singh has completely concealed this fact and has not stated this portion of the extra judicial confession. We also find from the evidence of
P.W.-6 Karan Singh that he is also closely related to the informant P.W.-3 Â Jeet Munda, and they being highly interested witnesses, their evidence
cannot be relied upon, particularly due to the change / concealment made by them in the alleged extra judicial confession. The evidences of both
these witnesses show that the extra judicial confession was made in the presence of the Chaukidar, but the Chaukiar and the I.O. of the case have not
been examined by the prosecution. Though, it is also apparent from the FIR that the weapon of offence was said to be concealed at the sister’s
place of the accused, but there appears to be no effort by the I.O., to recover the said weapon, as none of the witnesses have stated that the weapon
was also recovered. In the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home charge against the
accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and it is a fit case in which the accused ought to have been given at least the benefits of doubt.Â
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 6.7.1995 and Order of sentence dated 7.7.1995, passed by the learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in S.T. No.149 of 1992, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set-aside. The appellant is given the benefits of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge. The accused appellant
Ghasi Ram Munda is on bail, and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond.  Â
This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this
Judgment.Â