AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Court
The appellant Gurwa Patar, who has been convicted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saraikella for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence u/s 302 IPC whereas R.I. for 3 years for the offence u/s 201 IPC for killing his own wife Sarla Devi, has filed this appeal against the said impugned judgment dated 30/05/2002 in Sessions Trial No. 35 of 1999.
The facts, in short, are that the informant PW-8 Ram Patar gave a written information to the police alleging therein that his daughter Sarla Devi was married to the present appellant Gurwa Patar in the year 1996 and about six months back some quarrel had taken place in between the husband and wife due to which the deceased Sarla Devi returned to her "Maika", i.e. the house of the informant in the month of June 1998 after she was badly assaulted by the appellant due to which she lost her one tooth also. After that she did not want to go with her husband to his house. However, since the appellant came to the house of the informant to take his wife back then after much persuasion she was sent with him. The informant used to get information about the welfare of his daughter regularly and even on 02/09/1998 he was informed that his daughter was pulling on well with her husband but on 04/09/1998 he received information that his daughter was ailing. On the next date, i.e. on 05/09/1998 he suddenly came to know that his daughter has died and then he went to the house of his daughter in Village Dhundadih, there he learnt that his daughter, who was pregnant, had gone to the nearby filed of her husband for working. The informant also learnt that the appellant went to the field where his wife was working and then he forcibly brought her to his house by assaulting her seriously on the way. It is said that he assaulted the deceased by legs and fist due to which she died after some time. Further allegation is that his son-in-law, i.e. the appellant was a Chowkidar in Ichagarh Police Station and, hence, none of the villagers could dare to protest though they had seen him assaulting the deceased Sarla Devi.
The police registered FIR, took up investigation and on completion of the same, submitted charge sheet against the appellant u/s 302 and 201 IPC. The case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions, where the charges were framed and on denial by the appellant, he was put on trial.
In course of trial, in order to establish the charges, altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of defence also one witness was examined.
Out of nine prosecution witnesses, PWs. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the eye-witnesses on the point of assault made by the appellant to the deceased Sarla Devi. PW-1 has been declared hostile whereas PW-2 is Dr. A.K.Choudhary, who conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased Sarla Devi, and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:
(i) Soft tissues under skin over occipital scalp contused 5 cm x 5 cm.
(ii) Faint coloured subdural blood over right half of brain.
(iii) Uterus petrified ruptured and in its vicinity foetus lying inside pelvic abdomen, petrifying with umbilical cord and placenta attached to it. Length of foetus 19 cm. Mouth, nose and neck distinct, sex not differentiated. Age of foetus 13 to 18 weeks approximately.
According to the opinion of the Doctor the above injuries are ante mortem in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Death is due to head injury.
PW- 8 is the informant and PW-9 is the Iinvestigating Officer.
By challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, Mr. P.K.Das, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Counsel has taken us to the entire evidences of the prosecution witnesses and, thereafter, submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that the informant was informed about the death of his daughter and informant''s son namely Manmohan Singh Munda, i.e. the brother of the deceased was also present on 04/09/1998 when the dead body of the deceased was being buried but he did not lodge any FIR. As a matter of fact, the FIR was lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about six days, which creates grave doubt on the prosecution case.
On consideration of evidence and materials on records, we find that PW-3 Karamchand Patar, PW-4 Ajambar Singh Munda and PW-7 Ravi Munda are the eye-witnesses of the same village and they have stated that on the date of occurrence in between 3 to 4 p.m. they saw the appellant Guruwa Patar assaulting his wife, i.e. the deceased Sarla Devi. PW-3 Karamchand Patar is none else then the cousin brother of the appellant. All the above witnesses have stated that at that time the deceased Sarla Devi was pregnant. PW-4 Ajambar Singh Munda has further stated that the appellant got the dead body of his wife buried and subsequently the police recovered the dead body from the burial place. He is also a witness to the inquest.
PW-5 Ashis Singh Munda has stated that while he was returning from the market on a bicycle, he saw the appellant assaulting his wife Sarla Devi and he brought her to his house causing serious injuries to her due to which she died and, thereafter, he buried her dead body in the burial place.
PW-6 Pushkar Singh Munda and PW-7 Ravi Munda, who are also the eye-witnesses, have fully supported the case of the prosecution and they have specifically stated that they saw the appellant assaulting the deceased Sarla Devi.
As per the evidence of the Doctor PW-2 the death of the deceased was caused due to the injuries on the head caused by the hard and blunt substance. The soft tissues under skin over occipital scalp of the deceased were found to be contused. The Doctor also found faint coloured subdural blood over right half of the brain of the deceased.
According to the defence, the deceased died due to the head injury when she fell down on the ground and she received injuries since she was a patient of epilepsy.
Though a defence witness has been examined in this case on behalf of the defence, but we find that said witness has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not disclose this fact to the police that Sarla Devi was a patient of epilepsy and she died due to that though he was present when the police recovered the dead body of the deceased Sarla Devi from the burial place. No reliable evidence has been placed on record to show that the deceased Sarla Devi fell down on the ground due to the attack of epilepsy and she received head injury due to that.
In presence of overwhelming evidence of five eye-witnesses, who have specifically stated that they saw the appellant assaulting the deceased causing serious hurt to her resulting in her death, such plea of the defence cannot be accepted.
From the evidence and materials on record, we find that the prosecution has been able to establish the fact that the appellant Guruwa Patar killed his wife Sarla Devi by seriously causing hurt on her by fists and legs while she was pregnant due to which she died and, thereafter, he buried her dead body in a lonely place.
In view of the discussions and finding above, we hold that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Accordingly, affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, this appeal is dismissed.