Daud Munda and Another vs State of Bihar

Satyeshwar Roy and Abhiram Singh, JJ.—The two appellants were tried along with Yakub Munda for the murder of Rebka Mundian. Yakub was acquitted. The appellants were convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.

The written report submitted by P.W. 5 (the Mukhia) on 4.9.1977 was treated as the first information although P.W. 4 by letter dated 10-8-1977 had informed the officer-in-charge, Jaldega Police Station about the murder of his wife Rebeka. The court below accepted the case of the prosecution that the appellants had confessed that they had murdered Rebeka and threw the dead body into a Nala. It found the appellants guilty.

Mr Sahu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that although Rebka disappeared in January, 1977 no information about it was lodged by P.W. 4 before August, 1977, when by material exhibit ''I'' he informed the police that he had learnt from Manual (P.W. 6) that the appellants had murdered his wife Rebeka, He further submitted that the appellants made the confession being threatened by P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 (sarpanch). He urged that the appellants cannot beheld guilty on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution.

Letter dated 10-8-1977 written by P.W. 4. to the police was marked material exhibit I. We fail to understand why the letter was marked as material exhibit. Further, from this letter we find that it disclosed the fact of a cognizable offence and this ought to have been treated as first information. We further find that the Investigating Officer who was not examined in this case adopted a procedure unknown to law for he showed the letter of P.W. 4. to P.W. 5 and asked P.W. 5 to enquire the matter. The enquiry report 3 P.W 5 was treated as the first information. The report of P.W. 5 could not have been treated as the first information and the Investigation Officer could not have asked P.W. 5 to enquire into the allegation made by P.W. 4 fn his letter dated 10-8-1977, we, therefore, do not put any reliance on the report of P.W. 5 which was marked as exhibit 1.

From material exhibit I, we find that Manual knew that the appellants had murdered Rebeka. Manual was examined as P.W. 6 He in his evidence stated that he learnt about the murder of Rebeka for the first time when P, Ws. 5 and 8 came to the village to enquire into the matter. The allegations made in material exhibit I that the appellants had murdered Rebeka does not find support from the evidence of P.W. 6

From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4, we find that Rebeka was in the habit of leaving her home without informing any body and use to return after six months and even one year P.W. in his evidence stated that P.Ws. 5 and 8 told the appellants to confess their guilt otherwise the police would harass them. The confession of the appellants was not voluntary, and no reliance can be placed on such confession. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no material for holding that the appellants had murdered Rebeka.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the appellants are set aside. The appellants who were enlarged on bail, are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.