Jharkhand High Court
Ravan Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 24 July, 2017
Author: H.C. Mishra
Bench: Ananda Sen, H.C. Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL (D.B.) No. 1539 of 2007
--------
[Arising out of the Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence dated 29 th day of
September 2007, passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in
Sessions Case No.16 of 2006 / 67 of 2005]
-----
Ravan Murmu ... ... Appellant
-versus-
State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
PRESENT : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Appellant : Ms. Bharti Kumari, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P.
------
By Court.:- Heard Ms. Bharti Kumari, learned amicus curiae appointed by this Court for
the appellant, and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of
sentence dated 29th September, 2007, passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge,
Jamtara, in Sessions Case No.16 of 2006 / 67 of 2005, whereby the sole appellant has
been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 376 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.500 for the offence
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a
fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous
imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 201 of
the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the
informant Dropadi Besra, the younger sister of the deceased Prajapati Besra. According to
the fardbeyan, the deceased Prajapati Besara was living with the accused Ravan Murmu
as husband and wife at his village, in the State of West Bengal. On 09.08.2004, the
2
deceased had come to her father's place and after some time, the accused Ravan
Murmu also came there and took the deceased along with him stating that they were
going to Nala Hatia, whereafter the deceased did not return back. On 10.08.2004,
one Rakib Ansari informed that dead body of a lady was in the pond, whereupon she
went to the pond of Rakib Mian and found the dead body of her sister with injuries
on her body and her neck strangulated with her Salwar. The bag and slippers of the
deceased were also there. The informant has also stated in the fardbeyan that one
Lakhishwar Marandi had also seen the deceased along with the accused and
thereafter the accused was absconding. The informant has also stated that after her
sister went out of the house, she went towards the agricultural fields and when she
was returning, she saw 3-4 persons, whom she did not know by names, but, they
were friends of the accused Ravan Murmu, and they stated that they, along with
Ravan Murmu would kill her sister. She has alleged that the accused had committed
the murder of her sister. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Dropadi Besra, Nala P.S.
Case No.44 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No.229 of 2004 was instituted for the
offence under Sections 302 / 201 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation
was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the
accused.
4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was
framed against the accused for the offence under Sections 302, 376 and 201 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, 9 prosecution witnesses have been
examined, including the investigating officer of the case and the doctor, who had
conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.
5. P.W.-6 Dropadi Besra is the informant of the case, who has stated that
her elder sister, Prajapati Besra was living in her house (this witness's house) and the
accused Ravan Murmu used to visit there. He used to say that he would marry
Prajapati, but Prajapati was always denying the proposal. She has stated that about
3
1½ years ago, Ravan Murmu came and took Prajapati on a cycle towards Nala
Hatia. Thereafter her sister did not return. On the next day, Rakib Mian informed that
a dead body was there in a pond, whereupon, she went there and found the bag and
slippers of her sister near the pond. The body in the pond was of her sister's. Police
was informed and police visited there and recorded her fardbeyan, whereupon she
put her signature. Lakhishwar Marandi and Rajadhan Besra also put their signatures
as witnesses. This witness has identified her signature on the fardbeyan, which was
marked as Exhibit 1/2. She has also stated that when the dead body was taken out,
her private parts were found bleeding. This witness has also stated that during
investigation, a photograph of the accused Ravan Murmu was also recovered from
near the place of occurrence. This witness has also stated that Lakhishwar Marandi
had seen Prajapati and Ravan together while they were returning from Hatia. This
witness has stated that Ravan Murmu had told her sister that if she would not marry
him, he would kill her, and as such, she suspected that her sister was murdered by
the accused and the dead body was thrown in the pond. She has identified the
accused in Court. In her cross examination, this witness has stated that she had given
the statement before the police that the accused used to say that he would marry her
sister, the deceased used to deny the proposal and the accused had told her that if she
would not marry him, he would kill her. This witness has again stated in her cross
examination that Ravan Murmu was in the visiting terms at her house since about
1½ years and she has denied the suggestion that the deceased was residing at the
house of Ravan. She has also stated that her father had no objection, as both of them
were in love. She has denied the suggestion that the deceased was living with
Ravan Murmu as husband and wife, which was not liked by the family members,
due to which she was murdered by her father and the accused has been falsely
implicated in the case.
6. P.W.-1 Rajadhan Besra is the father of the deceased and this witness
has stated that his elder daughter Prajapati was in illicit relationship with accused
4
and she used to visit the house of the accused. He has stated that on the date of
occurrence, Ravan came to his house and took Prajapati along with him to Hatia,
where after his daughter did not return. On the next day, the dead body of his
daughter was found in the pond and the police was informed. The dead body of his
daughter was taken out from the pond by the police, and the inquest report was
prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. This witness had put his
signature on the fardbeyan, which he had identified and the same was marked as
Exhibit-1. He has stated that blood was oozing out from the nose and ears of the
deceased and her neck was strangulated by salwar. This witness has also stated that
the voter identity card of the accused was recovered by the police from near the
place of occurrence. In his cross examination, this witness has admitted that
Prajapati and Ravan were in relationship for about two years prior to the occurrence,
but they were not living as husband and wife. They used to meet outside the house,
but he has again admitted that his daughter used to visit the house of the accused
where she also used to live there. He has denied the suggestion that since they were
opposed to the illicit relation of his daughter, the daughter was murdered and the
accused has been falsely implicated.
7. P.W.-5 Lakhishwar Marandi is the witness about whom it has been
stated that he had last seen the deceased and accused together while they were going
to Hatia. This witness is also a signatory to the fardbeyan and the inquest report and
he has identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Exhibit 1/1
and his signature on the inquest report, which was marked Exhibit 3. This witness
has stated that he had seen Prajapati along with a boy, but he did not identify who
the boy was. Thereafter, he heard about the recovery of her dead body.
8. P.W.-2 Surin Murmu has stated that the police had taken his signature
on some papers, but, he had no knowledge as to what were those papers. In his
cross-examination, he has stated that those papers were blank. Similarly, P.W.-4
Umapado Bhandari is also a signatory to the inquest report, but he has not stated
5
anything about the prosecution case, and in his cross-examination, he has stated that
his signature was obtained on a blank paper.
9. P.W.-3 Rakib Mian has only stated that he had seen the dead body in
his pond, where after the police was informed and later, he learnt that the dead body
was of the daughter of Rajadhan. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated
that about 2 years prior to the occurrence, the deceased had left her father's place,
due to which Rajadhan used to be very angry with her.
10. P.W.-8 Dr. Bipad Bhanjan Mahto is the Medical Officer, who had
conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on
11.08.2004and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on her person:-
(i) Lacerated wound over posterior fourchette measuring 2" x 1/2" x muscle deep
(ii) Abrasion over upper part of right labia majora measuring 1" x 1/2"
(iii) Abrasion over upper part of left labia mejora measuring 1/2" x 1/2"
(iv) Ligature mark seen over anterior aspect of neck measuring 3" long and 2 1/2" wide.
Dissection of neck - The subcutaneous tissue underneath the ligature mark pale and white.
He has stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and the deceased was also raped before her death. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit 5.
11. P.W.-7 Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha is the investigating officer of the case. This witness has stated that on 11.08.2004, while he was posted as Officer-in- Charge in Nala Police Station, he was informed that the dead body of a girl was found in a pond. He made Sanha Entry No.199 dated 11.08.2004 and visited the place of occurrence, where he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Dropadi Besra. He has identified the fardbeyan to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit 1/3, the endorsement on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Exhibit 1/4. He has also proved the formal F.I.R., which was marked Exhibit 4. He has stated that he recorded the re-statement of the informant. He has also given the 6 details of the place, where the dead body was recovered and has stated that blood was oozing from the nose and ears of the deceased and her neck was strangulated by salwar. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body, which he has identified and the same was marked as Exhibit 3/1. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and recorded the statement of other witnesses. He has stated that he arrested the accused and on the basis of his confessional statement, he recovered his voter identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, from near the place of occurrence and prepared the seizure list, which he has proved as Exhibit 2/2. He has stated that after getting the postmortem report, he has submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the informant Dropadi Besra had not given any statement before him that the accused used to say that he would marry Prajapati, which was being denied by Prajapati and for that she was threatened to be killed. He has denied the suggestion that he made faulty investigation. However, this witness has not proved any confessional statement of the accused.
12. P.W.-9 Jagat Narayan Singh is the Sub Inspector, who had only produced the Voter Identity Card, which was marked as Exhibit 7.
13. On the basis of the evidence brought on record, the Trial Court below has convicted and sentenced appellant for the offences as stated above.
14. Learned amicus curiae, arguing for the appellant, has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence of rape and murder and the evidence of the witnesses are full of contradictions. Learned counsel submitted that only two witnesses have supported the prosecution case, who are highly interested witnesses and they are P.W.-1 Rajadhan Besra, the father of the deceased, and P.W.-6 Dropadi Besra, who is the sister of the deceased and even their evidences are full of contradictions. It is 7 pointed out by the learned counsel that even though P.W.-6 Dropadi Besra has stated, both in the F.I.R., and in her evidence that the deceased was last seen along with the accused by Lakhishwar Marandi, but P.W.5 Lakhishwar Marandi, has stated that he had seen the deceased with a boy, whom he did not identify. It is also submitted that though in the F.I.R., it is clearly stated that the deceased was living with the accused in live-in relationship at his house in the State of West Bengal, but, the informant has changed her version in her evidence before the Court and stated that the deceased was living in her own house and it was the accused, who used to visit the deceased at her place and she (deceased) never lived at the accused's place. It is also submitted by learned counsel that live-in relationship between the accused and the deceased is an admitted fact and in that view of the matter, there was no occasion for the accused to have committed rape upon the deceased and there is positive finding of rape upon the deceased by the Medical Officer, P.W.-8 Dr. Bipad Bhanjan Mahto. Learned counsel submitted that due to the fact that deceased was in live-in relationship with the accused, which was not liked by the family members, the false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out. It is lastly submitted by learned amicus curiae that though the investigating officer has stated that one Voter Identity Card was recovered on the confessional statement of the accused, but, no confessional statement has been proved in this case. Learned counsel, accordingly, submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the charge against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and it is a fit case in which the accused ought to have been acquitted, or in any case, ought to have been given at least the benefits of doubt.
15. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, inasmuch as, it is an admitted fact that the appellant and deceased were in visiting terms. On the date of occurrence, both of them went together towards Nala Hatia and as such there is positive 8 evidence against the accused of last seen with the deceased, and on the next day, the dead body of the deceased was found in the pond. Learned counsel submitted that it has come in the evidence that the accused used to threaten the deceased and since he was last seen with the deceased, and on the next day the dead body was recovered, the chain of circumstance is complete, proving the guilt of the accused that he had committed rape and murder of the deceased, and had thrown the dead body in the pond in order to conceal the evidence.
16. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the only evidence against the accused is last seen evidence. It is stated by P.W.-1 Rajadhan Besra, the father of the deceased and P.W.-6 Dropadi Besra, the sister of the deceased, that prior to the occurrence, the accused came to their house and took the deceased along with him on the pretext of going to Nala Hatia, where after the deceased was not found and on the next day her dead body was found. It is only this circumstance, which is against the accused, coupled with the recovery of his Voter Identity Card from near the place of occurrence, allegedly on the basis of his confessional statement. The fact however, remains that the said confessional statement has not been proved by the investigating officer. We have also gone through the case diary available in the Lower Court Record, to find out as to whether any confessional statement was there or not. We find that though there is a confessional statement recorded in the case diary, but it is not stated therein that rape was also committed on the deceased before committing her murder, though the medical evidence positively shows that rape was committed on the deceased before she was murdered. It is stated in the confessional statement that after killing the deceased, the accused concealed his own photo identity card near the place of occurrence, which story appears to be doubtful. As such, the story of recording the confessional statement of the accused, do not inspire much confidence.
17. This apart, in view of the admitted facts that the deceased was in 9 live-in relationship with the accused, and that she had gone with the accused out of her freewill, there appears to be no occasion for the accused either to have committed rape upon the deceased, or to have committed her murder. The fact also remains that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. Though in the F.I.R., it is stated that the deceased used to live at the house of the accused, but, this fact is completely denied in the evidence by the informant, P.W.-6 Dropadi Besra and she has stated that it was the accused, who used to visit the deceased and she has also gone to the extent of stating that the accused wanted to marry the deceased against her wishes and he used to threaten to kill her, if she did not marry him. But this fact was neither stated in the F.I.R., nor before the police, as admitted by P.W.-7 Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha. The illicit relationship between the deceased and accused is also admitted by P.W.-1 Rajadhan Besra, the father of the deceased, who has stated that his elder daughter Prajapati was in illicit relationship with accused and she used to visit the house of the accused, and has also admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased also used to live in the house of the deceased. We find from the evidence on record that even the last seen evidence against the accused is very doubtful, as P.W.-5 Lakhishwar Marandi, about whom it has been stated that he had last seen the deceased and accused together, has clearly stated that he had seen Prajapati along with a boy, but he did not identify who the boy was.
18. In the facts of this case, though there is last seen evidence against the accused, in the evidence of P.W.-1 Rajadhan Besra and P.W.-6 Dropadi Besra, but the evidence of P.W.-5 Lakhishwar Marandi, makes this evidence also very doubtful. The fact remains that illicit relationship between the deceased and the accused is an admitted fact, and in that view of the matter, the proposition that the illicit relationship was not liked by the family members, cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, in view of the admitted facts that the deceased was in live-in relationship with the accused, and that she had gone with the accused out of her freewill, there 10 appears to be no occasion for the accused either to have committed rape upon the deceased, or to have committed her murder. We are of the considered view, that on the basis of the evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances, so as to point out only towards the guilt of the accused and not otherwise, and accordingly, the accused appellant was entitled to be given the benefits of doubt.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence dated 29th day of September 2007, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No.16 of 2006 / 67 of 2005, are hereby, set aside. The appellant is given the benefits of doubt and he is acquitted of the charges. Appellant Ravan Murmu is in custody, let him be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.
20. Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that we have been given very able assistance by the learned amicus curiae, Ms. Bharti Kumari, and accordingly, we direct the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, to make the payment of the prescribed remuneration to her. Let a copy of this Judgment be given to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, for the needful.
21. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.
(H.C. Mishra, J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi The, 24th July, 2017 Kumar/AFR