Konta Munda vs The State of Jharkhand

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 05/09/2003 and order of sentence dated 10/09/2003 passed by the additional Judicial Commissioner in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the court having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of his wife Dimbu Purti, convicted him for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

The case of the prosecution is that the appellant had two daughters Rupan Kumari and Sinee Kumari. Rupan Kumari had gone to Punjab for earning her livelihood whereas Sinee Kumari was residing with the appellant and her mother, Dimbu Purti. In the night of 15.04.2002, the appellant his wife and daughter Sinee Kumari (P.W. 4) took their meals and then Sinee Kumari retired to bed. About 12 O''clock in the night, the appellant who was in the state of intoxication assaulted over the head of his wife, while she was sleeping, with ''sawal'' as a result of which the skull got fractured into pieces. She died instantaneously.

On the next day i.e. 16.4.2002, the then officer incharge of Murhu police Station Mr. Deobrat Poddar came to the place of occurrence at about 11 O''clock and recorded the Fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of Sau Munda father of the appellant, wherein he narrated the story as has been stated above, on the basis of said Fardbeyan a formal FIR (Ext. 4) was drawn and the matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation, the I.O. seized ''sawal'' having blood stain over it as well as earth smeared with blood under seizure list Ext. � and Ext. 6 respectively.

The I.O. having prepared the inquest report sent the dead body for postmortem examination, which was conducted by doctor, Dr. Pawan Kumar Dutta, P.W. 8. On holding autopsy the doctor did find the following injuries:

(i) Injuries were found on the right side of parietal side 6" x 4" x 4" both parietal and occiperital bones were found broken; Brain matters were found protruded out not remaining in skull.

The doctor, issued postmortem examination report (Ext. 2), with an opinion that death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage on account of aforesaid injury caused by heavy weapon.

Meanwhile, the I.O. Recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of investigation, when the charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant. When the accused was was put on trial the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Of them P.W. 1, Lita Munda, P.W. 2 Gonda Munda s/o. Munni Munda P.W. 3 Gonda Munda s/o. Sau Munda, P.W. 5, Soni Devi, mother-in-law, P.W. 6 Birsha Munda, P.W. 7 Lodara Purti and P.W. 9 Sau Munda, informant are the hearsay witnesses who either came to know about the occurrence from Sinee Kumari, P.W. 4 daughter of the appellant or from the informant.

However, the informant P.W. 9, Sau Munda, P.W. 1, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 have also testified that the appellant in the next morning of the occurrence confessed his guilt before them that he has killed his wife. P.W. 4 Sinee Kumari, the daughter of the appellant has clearly deposed that in the next morning her father disclosed her that he has killed her mother. P.W. 10, Manga Munda and P.W. 11 Beeren Kumari have been declared hostile. After the closure of the prosecution case, when the incriminating evidences were put to the appellant under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant denied.

The trial court having found that the deceased was killed in the room in which she was living along with this appellant and that the appellant did make extra judicial confession before the witnesses that he has killed the deceased with ''sawal'' which was seized by the police, found the appellant guilty for killing his wife and accordingly, recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

Ms. Amrita Banerjee, who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court, submits that the deceased was found killed in the room in which the appellant was residing with the deceased and the appellant is said to have confessed his guilt but whatever act was done it is on account of unsoundness of mind due to which he was incapable of knowing the nature of act. The fact that the appellant was a person of unsoundness of mind, is evident from the testimonies of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 9 who have testified that the appellant was not the person of sound mind. In this situation the trial court should not have convicted the appellant and thereby the trial court committed illegality in convicting the appellant and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside.

As against this Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. submitted that during investigation some of the witnesses has testified that the appellant was not the man of sound mind, but, nothing has been brought on record to show that the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act done by him and thereby even if some of the witnesses have testified that the appellant was mad, the case of the appellant would never fall within the mischief of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and under the circumstances, when the evidences are there to the effect that the deceased was killed in the room in which only the appellant and deceased were living and that the appellant made extra judicial confession before the witnesses 1, 4 and 6, the trial court seems to be absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which never warrants to be interfered with.

Having heard counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that the deceased, the wife of the appellant, was found killed in the room in which the appellant and the deceased were living. The impact of assault made over the head of the deceased was so extensive that the bones of the skull got fractured into pieces and the brain matter came out completely, which, injury, according to doctor, was caused by hard blunt substance, like ''sawal'' which when was seized, it was having blood stain over it. Thus clinching evidences are there that the deceased was found killed in a room in which the appellant was living with her. In that event, the burden was upon the appellant to explain as to how the deceased died as it was within the personal knowledge of the appellant, but such burden does not seems to have been discharged by the appellant, as the appellant did not say anything in this regard.

Furthermore, we do find that the appellant in the next morning of the occurrence confessed about his guilt before his daughter Sinee Kumari P.W. 4 and also before P.Ws. 1 and 6. There has been no reason to disregard that piece of evidence wherein they have testified that the appellant did confess his guilt that he had committed murder of the deceased.

Proceeding further with the matter, it be started that the submission which was advanced on behalf of the appellant is that even if the appellant did assault by ''sawal'' on the head of the deceased, he might have did so without knowing the consequences of it as the appellant as per the testimonies of the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 was mad and thereby the appellant would not be responsible for committing offence in view of the provisions as contained in section 84 of the Indian Penal Code stipulating therein that the act of a person of unsound mind would not amount an offence.

The provision as contained in section 84 reads as follows:-

"Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of, unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law."

To establish that an act done cannot be said to be an offence as covered by section 84, the following elements must be there:

(i) The accused was of unsound mind at the time of commission of the act; and

(ii) By reason of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary of law.

To establish a defence on the ground of insanity it must clearly be proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing so or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong or contrary to law. In other words, we can say that every type of insanity is not legal insanity rather legal insanity would be there where cognitive faculty must be so destroyed as to render one incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.

In the instant case some of the witnesses, named above, have stated that the appellant had gone mad but nothing is there to even show that the extent of madness was as such that it had made the appellant incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he did is wrong or contrary to law.

Furthermore, we do find that P.W. 7, the brother of the deceased has testified that the appellant was man of sound mind where as P.W. 9, father of the appellant has testified that the appellant had gone slightly mad and thereby he was being treated indigenously. In that view of the matter, the deceased can never be said to be a person of unsoundness of mind that he was incapable of knowing the consequences of the act.

Under the circumstances, the appellant cannot be extended with the benefit of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, we do find that the trial Court was absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is, hereby, affirmed.

Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed.