Ram Rai Murmu alias Rutu Murmu vs State of Jharkhand

The sole appellant-Ram Rai Murmu alias Rutu Murmu has challenged the judgment of conviction under section 302 IPC dated 29.06.2001 and the order of sentence of R.I. for life for the said offence dated 02.07.2001 in Sessions Trial No.202 of 1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, at Seraikella.

The case of the prosecution as revealed by the informant namely, Smt. Pudu Murmu in her ferdbeyan recorded on 03.03.1997, at about 8:15 a.m. at Rajnagar Police Station, is that due to land dispute with her husband the accused-appellant has murdered him. It was about 9:00 p.m. on 02.03.1997 when she started search for her husband and she found the dead-body of her husband near a pond. His head was smashed and left ear was severed. In the village when she made enquiries, nobody claimed that he has seen the appellant causing death of her husband. On the basis of the aforesaid ferdbeyan of Smt. Pudu Murmu, Rajnagar P.S.Case No.8 of 1997 was registered under section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant. After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and he was sent up for trial for causing death of Arjun Murmu. During the trial, the prosecution has examine altogether 13 witnesses; the informant is P.W.-7 and the Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.-8.

Dr. Bijay Kumar Singh-P.W.-13 who has conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead-body has found the following injuries on the deceased-Arjun Murmu :

(i) Incised wound 3½" x ¼" x brain deep over the left temporal region of skull. Bone fractured.

(ii) Incised wound 3½" x 11/4 " x brain deep over the right temporal region of skull.

(iii) Incised wound 4" x ¼" x brain deep over the right mandibular region.

On the basis of the evidences led during the trial of Sessions Trial No.202 of 1997, the learned Judge has held that the prosecution has proved the charge under section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant.

Out of thirteen witnesses, P.W.3 has turned hostile and P.W.-11 has been tendered for cross-examination. Admittedly, there is no witness to the actual occurrence of murder of Arjun Murmu. The prosecution has relied on the following circumstances to prove the charge under section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant; (i) there was a land dispute between the appellant and the deceased, (ii) the appellant was found loitering near the pond in the evening of 02.03.1997, and (iii) the appellant was seen moving with an iron pipe and he confessed his guilt before the police on 04.03.1997.

The law on the circumstantial evidence has been lucidly discussed by the Supreme Court in "Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P."AIR 1952 SC 343. In this case, the Supreme Court has observed thus;

"It is well to remember that in case where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, the learned Amicus with reference to the judgment in "Dev Kanya Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh" (2018) 5 SCC 734 has contended that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not complete the chain of circumstances so as to establish that it was the appellant and appellant alone who has committed the crime.

We have perused the confessional statement of the appellant allegedly recorded at 8:30 hrs. on 04.03.1997. In his confessional statement, the appellant has stated that there was a land dispute between the deceased and his other brother whose name is also Ram Rai Murmu. There is no investigation on this point done by the investigating officer. The appellant further says that he assaulted the deceased indiscriminately with the iron pipe and before that he had purchased liquor and consumed it. In the first place, this statement of the appellant made before the police on 04.03.1997 is in conflict with the medical evidence. All the injuries found on Arjun Murmu were incised injuries; such injuries cannot be caused by an iron rod. Secondly, there is no investigation on purchase of liquor(Hadia) by the appellant. The iron rod allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant was not sent for forensic examination and, accordingly, there is no serological report produced on record. Moreover, mere recovery of the iron rod at the instance of the appellant would not lead to an inference that it was this very iron rod which was used in the crime and it was the appellant who has caused death of Arjun Murmu.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P."1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, has laid down the following test which the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence must satisfy;

(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilty is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and non else; and

(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

To prove the incriminating circumstances against the appellant, the prosecution has examined Bhola Ram Mardi-P.W.-4 who has stated that he has seen the appellant drinking liquor and moving with iron pipe in his hand. P.W.-5 has stated that he has seen the appellant loitering near the pond and he suspected that due to enmity with Arjun Murmu the appellant has killed him. On the aforesaid circumstances, relied upon by the prosecution, we find that conviction of the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. cannot be recorded. On mere suspicion, though suspicion against the appellant in this case appears to be not well-founded, an accused cannot be convicted for the offence like murder.

In the above facts, having examined the records of Sessions Trial No.202 of 1997, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant and, accordingly, he is acquitted of the charge framed against him vide order dated 03.08.1998.

The judgment of conviction under section 302 IPC dated 29.06.2001 and the order of sentence of R.I. for life dated 02.07.2001 in Sessions Trial No.202 of 1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, at Seraikella are set-aside.

The appellant is discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him.

In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 289 of 2001 is allowed.

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

The Court appreciates the efforts of Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, the learned Amicus who has prepared the list of dates, short synopsis and notes on argument and the assistance rendered by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the learned A.P.P.

The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s). He shall be paid Rs.5500/- for each effective date of hearing, but subject to the cap as provided under the Notification dated 23.11.2017.