Section 302 IPC Appeal against conviction Murder Cause of death was opined to be head injury caused by hard and blunt substance
Asau vs State of Jharkhand CRLDB 1422/16 04/08/22 [ Rogon JJ ]
[ JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ]
Section 302 IPC Appeal against conviction Murder Cause of death was opined to be head injury caused by hard and blunt substance PW-2 child witness, son of deceased and appellant – He deposed that he was present in the house when his father assaulted his mother with an iron rod and fled away – Motive behind assault also spelt out by him which is of having suspicion that his mother was having an illicit relationship with another person – Postmortem report further corroborates evidence of PW-2 – Dead body of wife of appellant found in his house – No explanation put forward by him – Conduct of appellant further cements his guilt as he fled away after committing murder – Prosecution, therefore, has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt Conviction order upheld. [Paras 11, 14 and 20]
11. P.W.7 (Jaipal Jerai) is the informant who has stated that Suro Kui was his elder sister whose marriage was solemnized with Asau Chatar. His nephew Jeteya Chatar had come and disclosed that his father has committed the murder of his mother with an iron rod and axe. He had gone to the house of his brother-in-law along with the Village-Munda. The Munda had informed the Police and thereafter his statement was recorded. He has identified his signature in the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-2/2. He has also identified his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. He has deposed that the Police had recovered a spade and an axe.
In cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seen the occurrence. He does not know as to whether any dispute existed between his sister and brother-in-law. He also does not know as to whether his brother-in-law had committed the murder or not.
14. P.W.10 (Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandit) was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and on 19.01.2010 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Suro Kui @ Mangri Kui and had found the following injuries:
(i) Swelling over scalp on right side with fracture of underlying frontal, parietal and temporal bone. There is laceration of brain tissue and soft tissue with blood and blood clot inside cranial cavity.
(ii) Bruise bluish black in colour on the anterior chest wall size- 4” x 3” with blood & blood clots underlying subcutaneous tissue.
(iii) There is pressure mark over anterior and left lateral aspect of neck. Three in numbers size – 4” x 1⁄2”, 3” x 1⁄2”, 21⁄2” x 1⁄2” with blood and blood clot underlying the skin.
(iv) There are multiple bruises on the back, both knee and on the buttock.
(v) Foul smelling liquid like substance present.
(vi) Uterus small size non-gravid.
The cause of death was opined to be head injury caused by hard and blunt substance. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-7.
20. The Investigating Officer (P.W.9) has stated that in course of investigation, he had recorded the statement of Tupra Chatar and Charhi Chatar and both have stated about seeing the assault and being threatened on trying to intervene. Both these witnesses have been examined as P.W.4 and P.W.5 and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution therefore rests upon the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 who is the son of the deceased and the appellant has deposed that he was present in the house when his father had assaulted his mother with an iron rod and fled away. The motive behind the assault has also been spelt out by him which is of having suspicion that his mother was having an illicit relationship with another person. The defence has been unable to demolish the testimony of this witness and his evidence appears to be reliable and trustworthy. The evidence of P.W.2 gains credence from the evidence of the informant who has been examined as P.W.7 and who has deposed about the information received from P.W.2 immediately after the occurrence that his father has committed the murder of his mother. The postmortem report further corroborates the evidence of P.W.2 as the cause of death has been opined to be on account of head injury caused by hard and blunt substance. The dead body of the wife of the appellant was found in his house and no explanation has been sought to be put forward by the appellant in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement. The conduct of the appellant further cements his guilt as he had fled away after committing the murder and had returned after four days to his house when on the basis of confidential information P.W.8 who was In-Charge of the investigation had arrested him. The prosecution, therefore, has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt
Adv Vaibhav Tomar ( All Rights Reserved)
click here for read the judgment