Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
H.C. MISHRA, B.B. MANGALMURTI, JJ.
Bijay Kujur - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cri. Appeal (DB) No. 246 of 2006
Decided On : 23-01-2018
For the Appellant : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar
The judgment established that evidence of mental illness can impact culpability and entitle the accused to the benefits of doubt.
Headnote:
Mental Illness - Murder - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 84 - The court discussed the evidence of mental illness of the accused and its potential impact on the case. The court considered the General Exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and concluded that the appellant might have assaulted his daughter to death in the fit of unsoundness of his mind, entitling him to the benefits of doubt. The judgment of conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his daughter based on the testimony of hearsay witnesses and circumstantial evidence. The appellant's mental illness was a key point of contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of mental illness raised doubts about the appellant's culpability and concluded that he might have committed the act in the fit of unsoundness of his mind, entitling him to the benefits of doubt.
Issues: The key issue was the appellant's mental state at the time of the alleged murder and its impact on his culpability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the General Exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and the evidence of mental illness to conclude that the appellant was entitled to the benefits of doubt.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
No one appears for the appellant, in spite of repeated calls. As the appellant is in custody for a long time, Smt. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae by the Court on behalf of the appellant.
2. Heard learned amicus curiae for the appellant as also learned counsel for the State.
3. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 31.8.2005 and order of sentence dated 2.9.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 236 of 2004, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that he had committed the murder of his own daughter, aged about 4 years. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the said offence.
4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan on Prabha Kujur, the wife of the accused and the mother of the deceased which was recorded on 26.4.2004 at about 7:45 p.m. at Bazar Tanr. Dumri. It is stated in the fardbeyan that the accused used to assault his wife, due to which, out of fear of her husband, she used to sleep in the house of her neighbour. On 24.4.2004 after taking her meals in the house she was going to sleep in the house of her neighbor but her son Akbar Kujur, aged about 6 and 1/2 years, slept in the house itself. She took her daughter Arpana Kujur, along with her and went to sleep in her neighbour's house. At about 8:00 p.m., her husband came there and forcibly brought the daughter along with him stating that she will sleep with him. On the next day, i.e., on 25.4.2004 in the morning, when the informant went to her house, she found her daughter dead with injuries on her body. She was informed by her son Akbar Kujur that the father had killed the daughter. She has stated that she could not inform the police that day, out of fear of her husband. The fardbeyan of the aforesaid occurrence was given on the next day, i.e., on 26.4.2004, on the basis of which, Dumri P.S. Case No. 11 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 240 of 2004, was instituted against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.
5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused’s pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial.
6. In course of trial eighteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of whom. PW1 Santosh Kumar, PW3 Arnush Kujur, PW4 Lalit Kujur, PW5 Bartholonies Barla, who is the neighbor of the informant and whose house she had gone to sleep, PW6 Josenious Tirkey, PW8 Rajaria Minz, PW10 Ritesh Minz, PW11 Santosh Kujur, PW12 Vijay Minz, PW13 Anil Kujur, PW15 Silvestar Minz and PW17 Agastin Baxla have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. PW4 Lalit Kujur is also a witness to the fardbeyan and the inquest report and he has identified his signatures on the fardbeyan and the inquest report, and PW6 Josenious Tirkey is also a witness to the inquest report, and his signature was also identified, and the signatures were marked Exhibits 1/1, 2 and 2/1.
7. PW2 Prabha Kujur is the informant and the mother of the deceased. She has supported the prosecution case stating that on 24.4.2004 in the night, she had gone to sleep in the house of Bartholonies Barla along with her daughter Arpana Kujur, and her son Akbar Kujur had slept in the house. She used to go to sleep in the house of Bartholonies out of fear of her husband and Bartholonies was her uncle in relation. She reached his house at about 8 p.m. and her husband also followed her and he forcibly took away the daughter Arpana Kujur along with him, stating that she would sleep with him. She did not go to her house out of fear. On th
