Back
2012 Supreme(Jhk) 942
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
R.K. MERATHIA, D.N. UPADHYAY, JJ.
Raghu Mahato - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1789 of 2004,
Decided on : July 9, 2012
Sanjay Kumar Jha and Sanjeev Thakur, for the appellant.
G.S. Prasad, APP, for the State.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the last seen theory, the reliance on circumstantial evidence, and the assessment of witness testimonies to establish guilt in a criminal case.
Headnote:
Last Seen Theory - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC, Section 201 IPC - The court discussed the last seen theory and the evidence presented by witnesses to establish the appellant's guilt. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC for the murder and disposal of the body of a woman who was allegedly pregnant with his child. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the last seen theory, circumstantial evidence, and witness testimonies. It rejected the appellant's defense of false implication and lack of motive.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the application of the last seen theory, and the establishment of motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the last seen theory, circumstantial evidence, and witness testimonies to establish the appellant's guilt. It also emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's defense and referred to relevant case laws to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant, dismissing the appeal.
By Court.- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.8.2004 and 8.9.2004 respectively passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge. Fast Track Court No. 1, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 229 of 2002, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also convicting him under Section 201 IPC and sentencing him to undergone RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default thereof to undergone further imprisonment for one month. However, all the sentences ordered to be run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.1.2002 Puran Chandra Basuki (PW 1) lodged a fardbeyan at about 9.20 a.m. along with his son PW 3 (Sagun Basuki) before police that dead body of his daughter Urmila's Kumari (deceased) aged about 20 years was bound thrown in the vacant land near the house of one Rajendra Prasad on the heap of stone chips and bricks. The statement was recorded near the dead body. The informant said that the deceased was a daily wager who used to go for work at about 7 a.m.. She was working under the appellant for last 3 years used to live with him most of the time. 30metime she did not return to her home and used to stay at the place of work, The Informant got the information about the death from the police. When he was coming to the police station, PW 4 and his brother PW 5 who were the known persons of the appellant called him and said that the appellant was keeping her (Urmila) for last three years as wife without marriage. PW's 4 and 5 further told him that on the previous day i.e. on 18.1.2002 when Urmila came to Tata for works, she went to the house of the appellant and later on at about 8 a.m. they saw the deceased going with the appellant on his TVS bike. PW 4 nd 5 further hold him that PW 4 asked the appellant as to whether he was taking Urmila. On this, the appellant replied that they were going to bring materials. PW 4 further told the informant that Urmila and the appellant both did not turn up for work for whole day. PW 4 further told that informant that when he was working at one place, the appellant came to him at about 5 p.m. and told the Urmila was not well and therefore he requested PW 4 for helping him for taking her to his house to which PW 4 expressed his inability. On this the appellant who had come over a tempo in which deceased was lying proceeded ahead. The informant further stated that the friend of Urmila, namely, Jeetmuni Murmu (PW 6) also told him that the deceased was pregnant from the appellant. She also told him that the appellant always used to take her on his bike to the market and to his house and used to keep her to his house. The informant lastly alleged that the appellant had committee sexual assault with the deceased due to which she became pregnant. He persuaded her for abortion and forcibly administered medicine and finally killed her and threw her dead body for concealing the evidence.
On such allegation the case was registered under Section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. However, the appellant has not been found guilty under Section 376 IPC, but has been found guilty under Sections 302 and 201 IPC as aforesaid.
3. Mr. Sanjay Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted as follows. The conviction of the appellant is based on the story of last seen. In such a case of circumstantial evidence prosecution has failed to prove the motive. The prosecution has not proved that the deceased was pregnant with the appellant. There are vital contradictions in the prosecution case. PW's 4 and 5 did not support the story said to have been disclosed by them in the FIR, There was no occasion for PW 4 and 5 to remain present at the place where the dead body was recovered. Place of occurrence has not been clearly established by the IO. Some important witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. The appellant has been falsely implicated in thi
