Dandu Ram @ Sandeep Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand

Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

Heard Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. P.P.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14-08-2019 passed by Sri Niraj Kumar Srivastav, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in S.T. No. 120/2016, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for each of the offences. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Firu Ram in which it has been stated that the informant had gone to his in-laws' place on 29-03-2016 and on reaching, his wife had disclosed that Dandu Ram (appellant) had come to her house, had committed rape upon her and also assaulted her and had put his finger in her private parts seriously injuring her. It has been stated that since Dandu Ram is the nephew of the informant, he desisted from going to the Police Station but when on 31-03-2016, the condition of his wife worsened, he had filed the written report.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Kurdeg P.S. Case No. 05/2016 was instituted under Sections 376 and 307 IPC. On account of the death of the wife of the informant, Section 302 IPC was added. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 120/2016. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 376 and 302 IPC which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case:

P.W.1 Ranthu Ram did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.2 Lohra Sahu has stated that the wife of the informant had died in the hospital.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that Ranthi Devi had gone for treatment to the hospital where she died.

P.W.3 Puran Rai has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.4 Sraban Ram has stated that on 29-03-2016 at 08:00PM, he was taking rest in his house. His brother-in-law Firu Ram had come to his house. His sister Ranthi Devi was in her matrimonial house. When his sister had come to his house alone, they were having their meals. She was not well as she had an injury on her private parts and she had disclosed that Dandu Ram had committed rape upon her and had given a knife blow on her private parts. In the morning, he and his brother-in-law had taken his sister to Kurdeg Hospital where they were advised to have the treatment at a better facility consequent to which, she was admitted in Kunkuri Hospital where in course of treatment, she died. The Police had recorded his statement. The blood-stained soil was seized by the Police and a seizure list was prepared. He has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-1. The post-mortem was done in Kunkuri Hospital.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that when his sister had come to his house there were blood stains on her wearing apparels.

P.W.5 Firu Ram is the informant who has stated that on 29-03-2016 he was at his in-laws' place in his village. His wife was washing utensils when the accused came and committed rape upon her and also knifed her in her private parts. At the time of the occurrence, his wife was in his house and after the incident had occurred, she had come to her parental place and had disclosed about the happenings. He had seen blood coming out from her private parts. He had taken his wife to Kurdeg P.S. He has proved his signature in the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. The Police had taken his wife to the hospital for treatment after which she was shifted to Kunkuri Hospital where in course of treatment, she died. The post-mortem of his wife was conducted at Kunkuri Hospital. He has stated that about a year back, the accused had assaulted and injured him and fled away to Kerala and the incident had taken place on the day he returned from Kerala.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the occurrence but the same was disclosed to him by his wife. He had taken his wife to the Police Station on the next day in the morning. From the Police Station, she was taken to Kurdeg Hospital where she was admitted and, in the evening, she was taken to Kunkuri Hospital. His in-laws’ place is very near to his house. When the accused had assaulted him and fled away to Kerala about a year back, he had not instituted any case.

P.W.6 Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari was posted as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Kurdeg P.S. and on 31-03-2016 on the written report of Firu Ram, Kurdeg P.S. Case No. 05/2016 was instituted and the investigation was handed over to him. In course of investigation, he had inspected the place of occurrence which is the mud-tiled house of the informant situated at village Awrajor. He had recorded the statements of Lohra Sahu and Ranthu Ram. He could not record the statement of Ranthi Devi since she died during treatment at Sadar Hospital, Kunkuri, Chhattisgarh. He had obtained the post-mortem report from Kunkuri Sadar Hospital. Before he had reached, the family of the deceased had already cremated the dead body. The accused was arrested from his house and his confessional statement was recorded. The arrest memo has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. In course of investigation, he had seized blood-stained soil and had sent it to FSL for forensic examination. The seizure list has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/1. The forwarding report of the accused being sent to judicial custody has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5. The application for adding Section 302 IPC has been marked as Exhibit-6. Since he was deputed in the Shravani Mela at Deoghar, he had handed over the investigation to the Officer-in-Charge. He has proved the formal FIR and the endorsement on the written report of the informant which have been marked as Exhibit-7 and 3/1 respectively.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seized the wearing apparels of the accused at the time of his arrest. In course of investigation, he could not find any witness who had seen the occurrence. The informant had not disclosed about the assault committed with a knife either in his written report or in his restatement. He could not recover the knife with which the murder had taken place. The accused is the nephew of the informant and nothing has come in course of investigation suggestive of any enmity between both of them.

P.W.7 Ravindra Kumar was posted as an Officer-in-Charge of Kurdeg P.S. and on 27-05-2016, he had taken over the investigation from Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari. He had perused the Case Diary after which he had recorded the restatement of the informant and had also recorded the statements of Ranthu Ram, Lohra Sahu, Puran Rai, Sahdeo Ram and Shravan Ram. He had obtained the FSL report and on completion of investigation, had submitted charge sheet under Section 376 and 302 IPC against the accused. The charge sheet has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had recorded the statements of the witnesses once again since the wife of the informant had died in the meantime. He was not able to find the knife used in the murder.

P.W.8 Dr. Sera Toppo was posted as a Medical Officer in Community Health Centre, Kunkuri, Chhattisgarh and on 01-04-2016, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ranthi Devi and had found the following:

The cause of death was opined to be due to hemorrhage shock due to incised wound over vagina. The post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8. The requisition of the Police has been marked as Exhibit-9.

The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the commission of the offence.

The defence has examined two witnesses in support of its case:

D.W.1 Sheetal Baraik has stated that the distance between his house and the house of the informant is 100 meters. The wife of the informant was suffering from some gynecological problems for which she was treated and the informant had also resorted to occult practice. In March 2016, Ranthi Devi was taken to Kunkuri Hospital, where she died. In the year 2015, the accused used to graze his bullock and that of the informant and the bullock of the informant had destroyed the paddy field of Yakub Lakra as a result of which a Panchayati was convened and the informant was fined Rs. 1000. Due to such incident, the informant had assaulted the accused and in retaliation, the accused had also given 3-4 danda blows upon the informant. Later on, he came to know that the accused had left for Kerala. The accused had returned after one year and the informant, due to previous enmity, had falsely implicated the accused.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen any medical prescriptions of Ranthi Devi.

D.W.2 Bita Ram has reiterated what has been stated by D.W.1.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen any medical prescriptions of the deceased.

It has been submitted by Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The purported disclosure of the deceased before the informant has been treated to be a dying declaration. There is no corroborative evidence to strengthen the assertion of the informant regarding such dying declaration. It has been submitted that in the written report as well as in his restatement, the informant had disclosed that as per the deceased, a finger was inserted in the private parts of the deceased but subsequently in his evidence as P.W.5, the informant has mentioned about a knife which seems to be tailor-made to corroborate the findings of the post-mortem report. The doctor who had treated the deceased has not been examined by the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecution does not suggest any motive for committing such offence. Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel for the appellant has copiously referred to the post-mortem report while submitting that the time of death as assigned in the post-mortem report is at variance to the date of the incident which throws up numerous possibilities of the actual perpetrator of the murder.

Learned Special P.P. has based his argument primarily on the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.5 and the post-mortem report. It has been submitted that the defence has failed to demolish the prosecution case or demonstrate any other angle and the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 is consistent and corroborative with the post-mortem report.

We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records.

Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses on record and the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence based on the testimony of P.W.4 and P.W.5. P.W.5 has stated about his wife (deceased) disclosing before him that the appellant had committed rape upon her, assaulted her and injured her in her private parts with his finger. When the wife of P.W.5 was disclosing the incident, P.W.4 who is the brother-in-law of P.W.5 was also present. As per the written report of P.W.5, he was informed about the incident on 29-03-2016 at 09:00PM. As per P.W.4 and P.W.5, the incident was disclosed by the deceased on 29-03-2016 at 08:00PM. The written report was given on 31-03-2016 at 06:00PM. The post-mortem was conducted on 04-01-2016 at 11:15AM and the time of death has been opined to be between 24-48 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. This, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, falsifies the date of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. In this context, we may refer to the case of Maxi Soreng @ Maxi v. State of Odisha reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 252 wherein, it has been held as under:

Though the time of death cannot be predicted with mathematical precision, but the tentative time range given in the post-mortem report can act as a tool to correlate as to when the deceased had died and such finding should have the inclusivity of the other factors governing the case. As per the post-mortem report conducted on 04-01-2016, the death had occurred 24-48 hours back which would mean that it would be sometimes on 02-01-2016 when we take the upper range. The inquest report reveals that the death had taken place on 31-03-2016 at 06:30PM. There appears to be an error in the post-mortem report as 01-04-2016 has been mentioned as 04-01-2016 and this gets clarified from the evidence of P.W.8 who had conducted post-mortem examination on 01-04-2016. The time of death would then be presumed to be between 30-03-2016 and 31-03-2016 and, therefore, it correlates with the range of time given in the post-mortem report.

The evidence of P.W.4 before whom also the deceased had disclosed about the incident has stated in his evidence that in the morning, the deceased was taken to Kurdeg Hospital and on being referred, she was taken to Kunkuri Hospital. Though learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is ambiguous as to when the deceased was taken to the hospital since no dates have been mentioned either by P.W.4 or P.W.5, but the evidence of P.W.4 if read in continuation to the initial description of the occurrence, would reveal that on the very next day of the incident, the deceased was taken to the hospital. It appears that though the written report was given belatedly on 31-03-2016, but it does not state that from 29-03-2016 to the date of the written report, the deceased was not given treatment anywhere rather it states that the Police was not approached earlier since the appellant is the nephew of the informant. No doubt there are certain contradictions with respect to admission in Kurdeg Hospital and thereafter to Kunkuri Hospital, but not much can be read into such contradiction as the informant is a rustic villager and his evidence as well as the evidence of his brother-in-law (P.W.5) appears to be natural and free from any exaggeration. There is also a consistency in the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 with respect to the dying declaration of the wife of P.W.5 and the manner of occurrence finds corroboration from the autopsy report as well. There also appears to be a motive on the part of the appellant as stated in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement as prior to fleeing to Kerala, a dispute had taken place between the appellant and P.W.5 regarding the bullock of P.W.5 for which the appellant had given lathi-blows on P.W.5 and fled away to Kerala. Though no case was instituted by P.W.5 relating to such incident, but an apprehension on the mind of the appellant might have led to his self-banishment from the village and the simmering embers flared up on return leading to such brutal assault and rape on the deceased. Moreover, the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 with respect to the appellant being falsely implicated by the informant on account of the incident which had taken place prior to the appellant leaving for Kerala does not hold water on account of the fact that if at all the appellant was aggrieved, he would immediately have filed a case but he chose not to do so and even in the written report the delay which had occurred has been explained by him considering the fact that the appellant is the nephew of P.W.5. No other angle has emerged in the case to eliminate the role of the appellant in committing rape and murder of the wife of P.W.5 and the defence has also failed to demolish the case of the prosecution.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit in this appeal which consequently stands dismissed.

Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed.