Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Sukhdeo Bhandari, son Late Baijnath - Appellant
Versus
The State Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1373 of 2017
Decided On : 14-03-2024
[CRIMINAL LAW] - [Murder Conviction] - [IPC Section 302] - [The court discussed Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to punishment for murder, emphasizing the necessity of proving the intent to kill and the act of murder itself. The court interpreted the testimonies of the minor eyewitness and the deceased's sister as credible, despite the appellant's claims of unreliability due to the witnesses' relationships with the victim. The court highlighted that the prosecution's burden of proof was met through consistent testimonies and corroborating medical evidence, leading to the affirmation of the conviction.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Sukhdeo Bhandari, was convicted for the murder of his wife, Shivratiya Devi, who was allegedly set on fire after being doused with kerosene. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of the deceased's minor daughter and sister, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. The deceased succumbed to her injuries shortly after the incident, leading to the filing of charges under Section 302 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimonies of the minor daughter (PW-1) and the sister (PW-4) credible and consistent. The court ruled that the prosecution had successfully established the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the absence of independent witnesses and the non-examination of the investigating officer. The court emphasized that the relationship of the witnesses to the deceased did not inherently discredit their testimonies.
Issues: 1. Whether the conviction based on the testimony of a minor eyewitness was justified? 2. Did the prosecution fail due to the absence of independent witnesses and the non-examination of the investigating officer?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimony of a close relative, even if considered 'interested', could be reliable if it was consistent and corroborated by other evidence. The court also noted that the burden of proof shifted to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as the circumstances of the crime were within his knowledge.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction dated 09.02.2017 and Order of sentence dated 10.02.2017, passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka, in Sessions Trial No.181 of 2012, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for three months.
2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Parbatiya Devi, alleging therein that the first marriage of her elder sister Shivratiya Devi (deceased) was solemnized with Kamu Singh and three children were born out from his first husband. The second marriage of her sister was solemnized eight years ago with Sukhdeo Bhandari and a female child was born who is aged about 07 years and the second child is aged 02 years.
3. It has further been alleged that the marriage of her sister with Sukhdeo Bhandari was solemnized eight years ago and after marriage he kept her sister properly for one year and after one year he started to assault and quarrel with her regularly.
4. It has also been alleged that yesterday, i.e., on 14.02.2011, when the informant was at her mother's house at Gopikandar then in the evening at about 7:30 p.m. wife of Bishnu Rai came and told to the mother of informant to go to the house of her daughter Shivratiya Devi, where her husband has burnt her. At that time the informant was there so her mother told her to go to the house of Shivratiya and inquire about the matter. When the informant was going to the house of her sister Shivratiya Devi from the house of her mother, on the way she came to know from the people that the villagers of her sister's village have taken her sister to Gopikandar Hospital. She reached the Hospital where the female child of her sister's first husband Payal Kumari told that her father Sukhdeo Bhandari has burnt her mother by setting fire and this occurrence has taken place on 14.02.2011 at about 6:00 p.m.
5. It has been further alleged that the informant had taken her sister with the help or villagers to Sadar Hospital, Dumka for her treatment where during treatment she died on 15.02.2011 and the informant has claimed that Sukhdeo Bhandari has killed her sister (deceased Shivratiya Devi) by setting the fire.
6. On the basis of the fardbeyan of informant dated 15.02.2011, Gopikandar P.S. Case No. 05/2011 dated 16.02.2011 has been registered U/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Sukhdeo Bhandari.
7. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet No. 19/2011 dated 01.06.2011 against the accused Sukhdeo Bhandari U/s 302 of the IPC.
8. Accordingly, the cognizance for the offence under the aforesaid section was taken against the above named accused and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 05.12.2012.
9. On 20.05.2013, the charge under sections 302 I.P.C was framed against the accused, namely, Sukhdeo Bhandari, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses, namely, PW. 1 Payal Kumari (daughter of the deceased), PW. 2 Bhawani Mirdha, PW. 3 Nimbulal Mandal, PW. 4 Parbati Devi (sister of the deceased and informant of this case) and PW. 5 Dr. Kumar Bagish (who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shibratiya Devi).
11. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein he has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence.
12. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence of prosecution witnesses found the charges levelled against the appella
The court established that the testimony of close relatives can be deemed credible and sufficient for conviction if it is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, and that the burden of dispr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
Eyewitness testimony from relatives is admissible and credible if consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, regardless of their relationship to the victim.
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
The conviction cannot stand if eyewitness testimony is contradictive and lacks corroboration, underscoring the necessity for reliability in criminal prosecutions.
Conviction can be upheld based on the reliable testimony of a sole eyewitness, irrespective of the presence of corroborating evidence or independent witnesses, as long as the evidence is credible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
