Doman Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Ravi Nath Verma, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court-III, Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 239 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the sole accused Doman Singh has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Guddi Kumari and for disappearance of the evidence with the intention of screening from the legal punishment and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. but separate sentence was not imposed for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P.C.

The prosecution case, which is based on the fardbeyan of the informant Saroja Devi (PW-4) of village Sakhuatanr Tola Halumar, Daltonganj Sadar P.S., Palamau recorded by Kumar Pallav (PW-6), S.I. of Police, on 27.04.2002 at 3.00 P.M., in short, is that at about 8.00 A.M. on the same day, her 13 years old daughter Guddi Kumari went to nearby forest for grazing she-goats but when she came back from forest at 10:30 a.m., there was shortage of one she-goat whereupon her daughter again went to the forest but did not return. Almost after an hour, the informant went towards the forest to search her daughter but saw that Doman Singh of her own village committed murder of her daughter after pressing her neck and setting the body on fire. Seeing this, she raised alarm but the said Doman Singh fled away in the forest. It is also alleged that the informant thereafter came near the dead body and found that her tongue was protruded and blood was coming out from her mouth and nostril and she also found the dead body of her daughter burnt. She suspected that there was some land dispute between the informant and Doman Singh and as he was little violent by nature and nobody was there behind him, he committed murder of her daughter by pressing her neck and set her body on fire. Prior to the occurrence, Doman Singh had threatened that every member of her family would be killed. The police after due investigation submitted the charge sheet and accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charge against the appellant Doman Singh was framed under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution in order to establish the charge against the appellant, examined six witnesses. Of them, the informant Saroja Devi was examined as PW-4 and she claimed to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. Two other witnesses P.W. 1-Sukhdeo Singh and P.W. 2-Raj Keshwar Singh are hearsay witnesses, P.W. 5 Rajnish Kumar is a formal witness, who has proved the formal F.I.R. (Ext.-3) and fardbeyan (Ext.-4) and the I.O. of this case Kumar Pallav is P.W. 6. P.W. 3 Dr. Satish Kumar Singh had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Guddi Kumari and found the following ante mortem injuries:

(i) Face is swollen,

(ii) Tongue is protruded,

(iii) Frothy blood around mouth and nostril,

(iv) Hands are clenched,

(v) Whole body was found burnt, no vesicles formation, no line of redness, no signs of inflammation.

On dissection of neck, the doctor found echymosis in subcutaneous tissues and muscles of neck. There is a fracture of hyoid bone. The cause of death as per the report of the Doctor was asphyxia due to strangulation and feature of burning. The autopsy report was marked as Ext.-1.

The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence and material brought on record specially the oral evidence of informant (P.W. 4) convicted and sentenced the appellant as foresaid.

The death of the deceased has not been challenged by the appellant but learned counsel appearing for the appellant by assailing the findings recorded by the trial court seriously contended that the court below failed to appreciate the previous enmity between the appellant and the informant and the evidence of P.W. 4 does not inspire confidence. It was also submitted that the entire findings of the court below is based on contradictions and surmises.

Contrary to the above submissions, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submitted that not only the evidence of P.W. 4 is trustworthy rather as immediately after the alleged occurrence, she narrated the entire occurrence to her father-in-law (P.W. 1) and her husband (P.W. 2) that the appellant has committed murder of Guddi Kumari after pressing her neck and set her body on fire, this part of evidence in view of Section 6 of the Evidence Act is admissible.

Before we enter into the veils of submissions of the counsels, we would like to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 Sukhdeo Singh is father-in-law of the informant and this witness has testified that while he was working at his field, he heard some alarm and went there and saw her granddaughter Guddi Kumari had been killed and his daughter-in-law was weeping. The witness has further testified that his daughter-in-law P.W. 4 informed him that the appellant has committed murder of Guddi Kumari after pressing her neck and set her body on fire. The witness has further confirmed that the appellant had previously also given threatening that he would kill the entire family.

Similarly, P.W. 2-Raj Keshwar Singh, the father of the deceased, in his evidence has testified that after hearing Halla when he came to the place of occurrence, found that his daughter Guddi Kumari has been murdered by throttling her neck and his wife P.W. 4 informed him that the appellant after committing murder of Guddi Kumari has fled away.

P.W. 4-Saroja Devi is the informant of this case and she has almost reiterated the facts as stated in the fardbeyan and the defence has failed to elicit anything adverse from this witness during cross-examination. This witness has graphically described the scenario that her daughter Guddi Kumari had gone to forest for grazing she-goats and came back at 10.00 A.M. and as one she-goat was missing, she again went towards the forest in search of she-goat but she did not return, whereafter this witness proceeded towards the forest in search of her daughter and saw that the appellant was setting fire in body of her daughter and seeing her, the appellant fled away towards the forest. The witness has further testified that the tongue of her daughter Guddi Kumari was protruded and blood was coming out from her nostril and ear and she also found the burnt cloths on the body of her daughter and, thereafter, she came back to her house and narrated the incidence to her father-in-law and her husband.

The said part of evidence of P.W. 4 that immediately after the occurrence, she came back to her house and narrated to her father-in-law and her husband, has been corroborated by P.W. 1, the father-in-law and P.W. 2-the husband of the informant in their evidence and this part of the evidence becomes relevant and admissible as Res Gestae under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. The said provision has an exception to the general rule whereunder hearsay evidence becomes admissible and for bringing such hearsay evidence within the ambit of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there could not be an interval, which would allow fabrication. In other words, the statements said to be admitted as forming part of Res Gestae must have been made contemporaneously with the act or immediately thereafter. In the instant case also, the informant immediately after the occurrence narrated incidence to P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. There is no dispute that P.W. 4 had given full and vivid description of sequence of events leading to the commission of the alleged offence by the appellant.

Indeed there are minor contradictions and variations in her statement in fardbeyan and deposition in court and in the evidences of PWs. 1 and 2 but those contradictions and variations are not so material as to affect the other part of their evidences. Besides minor contradiction as stated in fardbeyan that blood was coming out of mouth, she has stated in her evidence that she saw the blood coming out from the ear and nostril. So, there is absolutely nothing in the evidence during cross-examination to disbelieve or cast doubt on her testimony. The trial Court has rightly relied on the evidence of P.W. 4 as her evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon as they were all interested witnesses. Merely because the prosecution witnesses are close relatives or interested witnesses, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out. The discrepancies even if any, found in the evidence of the witnesses, they are formal and due to normal errors of observance, normal errors of memory and because of lapse of time and shock at the time of occurrence. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Appabhai and Another Vs. State of Gujarat, while dealing with the issue of contradictions and discrepancies in paragraph 13 of the judgment observed:

"13. The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance". The Hon''ble Court further observed:

"The courts further should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy." We consider that the testimony of P.W. 4 as also the P.Ws. 1 and 2 are reliable, trustworthy and no good reason can be traced out to reject them.

On consideration of the entire evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reasonable ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court. The prosecution has sufficiently proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

The appeal has no merit and deserves dismissal, which we direct.