- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the impugned judgment dated 02.07.2004/03.07.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2004 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chaibasa.
(3.) The prosecution story as made out on the basis of the written report of the informant Nadeya Bidiuli, son of Late Madhua Bidiuli of village Paharbhanga, P.S.Jhinkpani, District West Singhbhum recorded on 10.12.2003 leading to the institution of the F.I.R. being Jhinkpani P.S. Case No. 31 of 2003 on the same day against the sole accused-appellant herein, inter-alia states as under :- According to the informant, on the night of 09.12.2003 his gotia Madhua Bidiuli at about 11 p.m. came to his house and assaulted his sleeping wife with Farsa on her head and breast causing injury. On hearing alarm the neighbours also came. The reason for the assault is that in front of the informant's house, at a short distance the land of Madhua Bidiuli exist which was surrounded by Madhua Bidiuli. Madhua Bidiuli used to allege that he has broken their bushes around. The informant accordingly prayed for institution of the F.I.R. and for action against the accused person in accordance with law. The F.I.R. was instituted under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and later on, after the death of the informant's wife on 11.12.2003 offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. On completion of investigation, chargesheet bearing No.02 of 2004 dated 09.01.2004 was submitted on 10.01.2004 against the accused Madhua Bidiuli @ Madhusudan Bidiali under Sections 324/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken under these Sections against the accused on 19.01.2004 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 21.06.2004. He denied his involvement and pleaded innocence. No oral or documentary evidence were adduced on behalf of the defence. The trial commenced. On the part of the prosecution as many as 07 witnesses were examined to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused. They are PW-1 Nadeya Bidiuli who is informant and husband of the deceased, PW-2 Mangali Bidiuli, PW-3 Pitambar Bidiuli, PW-4 Dr. S.K.Singh who conducted the postmortem, PW-5 Krishna Chand Bidiuli, PW-6 A.K.Singh, Sub-Inspector and PW-7 Ram Suresh Singh, A.S.I PW-1 informant and husband of the deceased is said to be the eye witness. As per his deposition recorded on 02.06.2004, as interpreted by M.D.Barjo B.C., the incident took place about six months before in the night between 11-12 O'clock on Tuesday. The informant along with his wife Roekari and two children were inside the house. The children were sleeping on the other side of the veranda, informant and his wife were also sleeping. At that point the accused Madhua Bidiuli, who was quite drunken, came and assaulted his wife on the head and breast. The informant raised alarm. On his alarm, neighbours came. The informant had caught hold of the accused. The accused Madhua Bidiuli, however, threw away the Farsa just near his house. A small kerosene oiled lamp was burning at that point of time. The informant gave his statement to the Munda who recorded it and the informant gave his thumb impression thereupon. The informant identified the accused in the dock. He further stated that he took his wife to Chaibasa Hospital for treatment where she died on Thursday. He further stated that on the same day around 3.00 p.m. there was an altercation between the wife of the accused Madhua Bidiuli and his (informant) wife and due to that quarrel Madhua Bidiuli had assaulted his wife. On the same night he had told the villagers that Madhua Bidiuli had beaten his wife. In his cross examination he has further stated that he was sleeping with his wife at the same place. His wife was sleeping in the veranda whereas he was sleeping inside the house. The children were sleeping with his wife. One child is four years old while another is two years old. Kerosene oiled lamp was burning at the place where his wife was sleeping. When he reached that place Madhua Bidiuli was present at that place where he had assaulted and had not fled away. He has not seen the assault. His wife was unconscious. When he saw his wife, only his wife and children were present there and no one else were present. When he caught hold of Madhua Bidiuli, in the meantime, villagers came there. Out of them Sinu, Koda, Kaju and Kem were there. The villagers freed him telling the informant to remain in his house. Munda came in the night and in the morning also and noted down his statement in the morning. He was not able to say as to why his wife and Madhua's wife quarreled. He denied that he has given false statement. PW-2 Mangali Bidiuli has, in his deposition, stated that his house is situated about 30 steps from the informant's house. At the night he had heard the voice of the informant Nadeya and went to his house. On reaching there he saw scuffle between Madhua and Nadeya. Leaving Farsa there Madhua fled away. He saw the wife of Nadeya in injured condition. Nadeya told him that Madhua had assaulted his wife. In his cross examination he has stated that he had not seen the assault. It was a moon lit night. He had also told Pitambar that Madhua was fleeing away. Farsa was lying down at that place where the scuffle was going on. At that time, Pitambar was present there. They had gone to Munda. Nadeya informed him that there was a land dispute existing between them since long. PW-3 Pitambar Biduli in his deposition also stated that on that night at 11.00 p.m. on hearing the alarm of Nadeya he went to his house and saw the Farsa. He also saw Madhua fleeing. This witness identified the accused in the dock. He also said to have seen the wounds of Nadeya's wife. Nadeya explained him about the assault by Madhua. The police came on Wednesday and he had given his statement to the police. He also, in his cross examination denied having seen the assault. He also stated that Madhua had fled away towards his house through the way. Sinu and Kem had come later on. He further stated that he had no knowledge about the reason behind the fight. PW-5 is Krishna Chandra Bidiuli. He in his deposition stated that on 10.12.2003 the Sub-Inspector of Jhinkpani Police Station came to his village. Farsa was lying near the house of Nadeya Bidiuli and its one side was broken. The Sub-Inspector seized it. A seizure list was prepared by the Sub-Inspector. He handed over the Farsa to the Sub-Inspector. He along with Bhola Nath Gope had put their signature on the production-cum-seizure list which was marked as Ext.-2 and 2/1. The defence was not able to draw any contradictory statement in his cross examination. PW-6 Arun Kumar Singh, Officer-in-Charge of Jhinkpani Police Station, in his deposition has stated that on 10.12.2003 while he was posted as Officerin-Charge of Jhinkpani Police Station, at 11.00 a.m. Nadeya Bidiuli along with Munda Krishna Chandra Bidiuli of village Pahadbhenga came to the police station and gave written application on the basis of which Jhinkpani P.S. Case No.31/03 was registered under Sections 324/307 of the Indian Penal Code. The written report is marked as Ext.-3. The endorsement on the written report in his pen and signature is marked as Ext.3/1. The formal F.I.R. in his pen and signature was marked as Ext.-4. On the basis of the written report he registered the case and took up the investigation. Statements of the informant Nadeya Bidiuli and Krishna Chandra Bidiuli were recorded. He inspected the place of occurrence which is a earthen straw built East facing house of the village Pahar Bhanga consisting one room and veranda in the front side. In the Western side of the veranda the wife of the informant Roekari was sleeping on the ground on a bag generally made of jute for carrying grains etc. and that is the place where the accused said to have assaulted her. A pool of blood was fallen there and the injured was lying there. At the place of occurrence the Munda had produced an Axe which was seized and recorded in the seizure list prepared by him and is marked as Ext.-5. The informant's wife died on 11.12.2003 in course of treatment whereafter application for adding Section 302 was filed before the court of learned C.J.M. in his pen and signature which is marked as Ext.-6. He had recorded the statement of witnesses namely Bhola nath Gope, Krishna chandra Bidiuli, Mangali Bidiuli, Patambar Bidiuli, Simi Bidiuli, Bai Bidiuli and also arrested the accused Madhua @ Madhusudan Bidiuli and recorded his defence statement. Inquest report of the deceased was prepared on 12.12.2003 in the pen and signature of Ram Kumar Singh, Sub-Inspector of Sadar P.S. which was identified by PW-6 and marked as Ext.-7. The postmortem report was also received by PW-6 and after completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted under Sections 324/307 of the Indian Penal Code adding Section 302 I.P.C. to it. He further stated that injured Roekari Kui was sent for treatment alongwith application in his pen and signature marked as Ext.-8. In his cross examination he had further stated that the villagers had caught hold of the accused and confined the accused in the village. He arrested him from there. The Axe was produced from the place of occurrence. Ram Suresh Singh is the A.S.I. Who, in his deposition as PW-7, stated that the Farsa was seized and produced in court which was marked as Material Ext.-1. PW-4 is the medical witness Dr. S.K.Singh who, in his deposition has stated that on 12.12.2003 he was posted at Sadar Hospital,Chaibasa as M.O. On that day at 12.18 p.m. Postmortem examination was held on the dead body of Roekari Kui aged 35 years wife of Nandiya Bidiuli of village Paharbhanga, P.S. Jhinkpani, District West Singhbhum. He found the following ante mortem injuries :- (i) Sharp wound 2-1/2" x 1/2" intra cranial deep over left fore head (ii) Sharp wound 4-1/2" x 1/2" intra cranial deep 1/2" above wound no.1. (iii) Sharp wound 1/2" x 1/2" x sub-cutenous deep over left breast. He opined the cause of death as due to head injury due to sharp substance may be Farsa. He further opined that injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He confirmed and proved the postmortem report as prepared by him in his signature marked as Ext.-1. In his cross examination he stated that injuries No.1 and 2 individually may cause death of a person. Head injury resulted in shock and hemorrhage.;