Jharkhand High Court
Mukru Gagrai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 498 of 2017
(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 11.01.2017 and order of sentence dated
13.01.2017, passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, in S.T.
No. 160 of 2015 (arising out of Chakradharpur P.S. Case No.59 of 2014 and G.R.
No. 158 of 2014).
Mukru Gagrai, S/o late Soma Gagrai, R/o village- Lupungbrah, P.O. & P.S.
Chakradharpur, District- West Singhbhum.
.... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... Respondent
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, APP
.....
Dated : 15.10.2024
By Court: - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.
1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against Judgment of conviction dated 11.01.2017 and order of sentence dated 13.01.2017, passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 160 of 2015 (arising out of Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 59 of 2014 and G.R. No. 158 of 2014) whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigours imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 10000/- for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the doctor has opined the death is due to asphyxia, but in cross-examination he stated that in case of partial hanging the aforesaid features can be reflected. It is case of the prosecution that deceased has committed suicide as she came to know that this appellant was already married and was having three children for which since last some days before her death there was some quarrel going on between the husband and the wife. It is further submitted that as per the F.I.R. this appellant was fishing in the dam at the time of occurrence where the informant, who is the father of the deceased was also present. This casts 1 serious doubt on the homicidal death and the P.M Report was suggestive of suicidal death.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that, it has come in evidence that the relationship between the husband and wife was not cordial and this appellant had enticed the girl and taken her away to brick kiln thereafter, established physical relationship and married her and started residing just in front of the house of informant. It has also come in evidence that the quarrel was going on between the appellant and the deceased and the deceased was found hanging in the room with the nylon saree and her feet was touching the ground which suggested that she was murdered. He also submits that doctor has opined that death is consequence of asphyxia due to strangulation.
4. The F.I.R. in this case at instance of P.W. 2, who is the father of the deceased. As per the FIR this appellant had enticed his daughter, who was minor and taken her to brick kiln and thereafter, established physical relationship. The family members of the deceased thereafter amicably got her married with the appellant. The deceased started residing in front of the house of the informant along with the appellant in one room. On the fateful day, this informant was fishing in the dam and the appellant was also present at the dam and he was also fishing. The informant received information that his daughter was hanging in the room by saree. The wife of this informant came and assaulted this appellant alleging that this appellant has committed murder of the deceased.
5. On the basis of the 'fardbeyan' of the informant, the Police instituted First Information Report being Chakradharpur, P.S. Case No. 59 of 2014 dated 21.06.2014 registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant/accused.
6. After investigation, the Police found the case true and submitted charge-
sheet and cognizance was taken and appellant was put on trial for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. In order to prove the case, altogether six witnesses have been examined who are P.W.1 to P.W. 6. In this case, admittedly there was no eye witness to the said occurrence.
28. After prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence has also examined two witnesses as DW 1 and DW 2.
9. P.W. 2 is the informant and father of the deceased. From his evidence, it is clear that when he received information about the death of his daughter to the effect that she was found hanging in the room, this appellant was fishing at the dam and this informant was also present at the dam, as he was also fishing and he had seen the appellant there. P.W. 5 is the mother of the deceased. She was also not an eye witness to the said occurrence. She stated that from the village a child came and informed that the deceased was found hanging in the room with the help of nylon saree. She reached there and had seen her daughter hanging. Another important witness is the doctor, who was examined as P.W. 4. He opined that death is consequence of asphyxia due to strangulation, but he stated that ligature mark present horizontally and below the thyroid cartilage level signifies that death may be homicidal in nature, but in cross-examination he stated that in case of partial hanging the aforesaid features can occur.
10. Thus, from the evidence of the doctor, there is no conclusive proof that it is a case of asphyxia or case of partial hanging. Further, we find that it is a case of the prosecution and also admitted by the informant at the time when the body was found hanging, this appellant was not present in his house as he was also present at the dam and was fishing. This fact has been admitted by the informant who was also present there.
11. All these relevant facts create doubt as to whether the appellant had committed the offence and whether the death was actually homicidal or suicidal. Evidence of the appellant fishing at the time of the incidence cannot be reconciled with the allegation of having committed the offence against his wife. Thus, by giving benefit of doubt, we are inclined to allow this appeal and acquit the appellant of the charges.
12. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 11.01.2017 and order of sentence dated 13.01.2017, passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 160 of 2015 arising out of Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 59 of 2014 and G.R. No. 158 of 2014) is hereby set aside. Cr. Appeal (DB) is allowed.
3Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
Let T.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.
(Ananda Sen, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 15.10.2024 Anjali/Pawan 4