Singo Murmu And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Shree Chandrashekhar, J

Two persons namely, Singo Murmu and Binod Murmu, both mother and son, were put on trial in S.T. Case No.47 of 2005. A First Information Report was lodged against them under section 302 and 201 read with section 34 I.P.C, on the basis of the fardbeyan of Debo Hansda, the informant. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and both the accused persons were sent up for trial. They have faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of Gulapi alias Malati, daughter of the informant, in furtherance of their common intention and for causing disappearance of her body.

In order to establish its case that the accused persons first killed Gulapi alias Malati and then set her ablaze to give colour of suicide by the deceased, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses; the informant is P.W.7 and the Investigating Officer is P.W.8, during the trial.

Dr. Yogendra Nath, who has conducted autopsy, has found the following injuries on Gulapi alias Malati:

"External injuries- there was dermo epidermal burn of front of abdomen and chest, back of chest & portion of abdomen, both upper extremities face & neck. Hair singed and emits smell of kerosene. A burnt ligature mark over neck encircling the neck. The vital reaction time was very feeble.

Internal injuries- diffuse contusion of scalp, 2x1cm, 4x3 cm, 3x2 cm over frontal area, 2x2 cm over right parietal area, 3x3 cm 2x2 cm and 3x3 cm and multiple nail head size over occipital scalp. There was sub dural blood clot and contusion of whole brain. There was contusion of left side of respiratory passage near body of thyroid cartilage. There was contusion of back of thyroid cartilage also."

The doctor has opined that all the injuries on Gulapi alias Malati were anti-mortem and death was caused due to strangulation. He has found a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. In the opinion of the doctor, injuries were post-mortem in nature.

In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that he was informed by a villager that his daughter has been killed by her husband and mother-in-law. Upon such information, he alongwith his wife, Bhabhi, Charu and Fakir came to the village Seraldih where they found the dead-body of his daughter in partially burnt condition. The informant has stated that he has noticed ligature mark over the neck of his daughter. He has narrated a similar story when he was examined in the court. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that when he visited the matrimonial home of his daughter he found her dead-body on a cot and the neighbours of the accused persons tried to convince him that his daughter has died due to suicide. In his cross-examination he has stated that he does not remember the name of the person from village Seraldih who has given information to him about death of his daughter.

The other prosecution witnesses are co-villagers of the informant; no neighbour of the appellants or any one from their village have been examined during the trial. The other prosecution witnesses have also narrated a similar story when they were examined in the court.

The learned Judge has taken the following circumstances against the appellants to hold them guilty for the death of Gulapi alias Malati:

"(a) the deceased Gulpi alias Malti was wife of accused-1 Binod Murmu and the marriage took place about ten years prior to the date of incident,

(b) the dead body of the deceased has been found on a cot in the house of the accused in a partially burnt condition, on 16/11/2004.

(c) when the parents and the other family members of the deceased inquired from the accused they set the theory of self-immolation,

(d) the medical evidence shows that the deceased was first killed by strangulation and thereafter the dead body was burnt, as there was a ligature mark around the neck.

(e) even during examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. no explanation given as to how the deceased died and simply innocence has been pleaded by both the accused,

(f) the house where the deceased was found dead, was exclusively in possession of the accused,

(g) the theory of the suicide as set up by the defence becomes falsified in the light of medical evidence and from the description of the place of occurrence."

By now it is well-settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be firmly proved. The incriminating circumstances against an accused must be found conclusive in nature and the chain of circumstances must be complete in such a manner that it would establish that it was the accused and the accused alone who has committed the crime.

The circumstance that the house in which Gulapi alias Malati was found dead was in exclusive possession of the accused persons has not been proved by the prosecution. In fact, the prosecution witnesses have deposed that Singo Murmu was residing separately from her son, the appellant no.2. P.W.1 has deposed as under:

"4. अभियुक्त बिनोद एवं उसकी पत्नी एक साथ रहती थी परन्तु बिनोद की मॉ अपना बेटा बहू से अलग रहती थी क्योंकि सास बहू में झगडा होता था।"

Those witnesses have not been declared hostile by the prosecution on this point and while so, their statements are binding on the prosecution. Above being the factual position, we are of the opinion that unless it is established that the appellant, namely, Singo Murmu was present in the house of her son at the time of the occurrence, she cannot be convicted for murder of Gulapi alias Malati with the aid of section 34 I.P.C.

In view of the statement of the prosecution witnesses that the appellant, namely, Singo Murmu was not residing together with her son, we are of the opinion that none of the aforesaid incriminating circumstances would appear against her and while so, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 302, 201 read with section 34 I.P.C against the appellant, namely, Singo Murmu.

It has also not been proved by the prosecution that the accused persons were present in the house of Binod Murmu when Gulapi alias Malati has died. The statement of the informant and other prosecution witnesses that on enquiry the appellant no.2 told them a false story that Gulapi @ Malati has committed suicide by setting herself on fire has also not been proved by the prosecution. We find that the learned Judge has, in fact, recorded a wrong finding that under section 313 Cr.P.C no explanation has been given by the accused persons how Gulapi alias Malati has died. While answering the question no. 5, Binod Murmu has categorically stated that his wife has died by setting herself on fire (अपने जल के मरी).

In our opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances recorded by the learned Judge in paragraph no. 12 of the judgment in appeal and the chain of circumstances is completely broken.

Accordingly, the charges framed against the appellants under section 302/34 IPC and section 201/34 IPC must fail.

The judgment of conviction dated 23.03.2007 and order of sentence dated 28.03.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Ghatsila, Singhbhum East against the appellants, namely, Singo Murmu and Binod Murmu, in S.T.Case No.47 of 2005 are set-aside.

The appellant, namely, Binod Murmu shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other criminal case.

The appellant, namely, Singo Murmu who is on bail is discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by her.

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 550 of 2007 stands allowed.

The Court appreciates the efforts of Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, the learned Amicus.

The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s). He shall be paid Rs.5500/- for each effective date of hearing, but subject to the cap as provided under the Notification dated 23.11.2017.

Let the lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned forthwith.