Dismissed

Rajendra Hembram v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Mar 2023Cr.A(SJ)/1252/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging conviction under Section 498A IPC for cruelty against a wife, related to the death of his wife under Section 306 IPC where he was acquitted. The court affirmed the conviction but remitted the sentence, treating the period of pre-trial custody as sentence completion.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 498A IPC affirmed; sentence period to undergo imprisonment of two and a half years treated as fully served due to pre-trial custody.

Rajendra Hembram Vs State of Jharkhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1252 of 2008

¶3

... Rajendra Hembram Appellant

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Respondent

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶8

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.

¶10

¶11

Oral Order in Court

¶12

Order No. 04/ Dated: 16.03.2023

¶13

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 08.09.2008 and sentence dated 12.09.2008 in Kasmar P.S. Case No. 52 of 2006 (GR No. 681 of 2006, S.T. No. 501/06) passed by Sri Mahesh Chandra Verma, then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) by which the learned Court below has convicted the appellant for the offence under section 498 (A) I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment of a period of 2 ½ years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, S.I. for further one (01) month.

¶14

However, the learned Court below has acquitted him for the offence under section 306 of I.P.C.

¶15

The Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.09.2006 police station Kasmar received an information that the dead body of a lady was lying at village Silli Saram, then Sanha No.237/06 pertaining to this information was recorded and S.I Arun Khalko, with staff went to said village to verify about the information in house of accused Rajendra Hembram, at village Silli Saram and the police found dead body of Rajendra Hembram's wife Malti Devi. Binod Hansda, informant of this

¶16

¶17

case and brother of the deceased, had submitted a written information to the police and on the basis of FIR under section 498-A, 302 IPC vide Kasmar no.52/06 was registered at police station Kasmar. The informant Binod Hansda alleged that his brother-in- law Rajendra Hembram used to assault his sister regularly and also used to give threatening to kill her on countless numbers and once he had attacked his sister with sharp edged Farsa but at that time his sister was saved by the neighbours. He stated that his brother-in-law is doing job at B.S.L. and is having illicit relations for the last two years with his colleague girl and he used to say in quarrel with his sister that he, after killing her, would perform marriage with that girl. He also stated that on 10-09-06 that he went to the house of his sister and on that day also his sister told him that still incident of beating is going and she would not remain alive but he consoled her stating that he would convene a panchayati but before taking any step his sister was murdered on 11.09.2006. The informant suspected that she was given poison.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although the charges were framed under section 306, 498 A of the I.P.C., however the learned Court below has acquitted the appellant for the offence under section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for the period of two and half years for the offence under section 498 A of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that although nineteen (19) witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, however sixteen (16) witnesses have been declared hostile and the appellant has been convicted on the basis of evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 i.e. the Doctor. It

¶19

¶20

is submitted that the appellant remained in custody around two (02) years and around one (01) month and he was in custody from 20.10.2006 and was granted bail by this Court on 10.11.2008 and thus he remained in custody for around two (2) years and approx one (01) month hence he is not arguing on merit and submitted that period undergone by the appellant in custody may be treated as period of sentence by taking lenient view.

¶21

On the other hand , learned A.P.P. has submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below require no interference .It is submitted that the appellant committed murder of his wife and which is supported by the witnesses as P.W. 1 Binod Hansda, P.W. 3 Dinesh Manjhi and P.W. 5 Dr. Ajay Kumar had also stated the death of the deceased was caused due to poison and the deceased was disturbed due to illicit relations with one Sangita Devi and hence this appeal may be dismissed.

¶22

Perused the Lower Court Record of this case and considered the submission of both the sides.

¶23

It transpires that the informant had lodged the F.I.R on 12.09.2006, although the deceased Malti Devi had died on 11.9.2006.

¶24

It transpires that the F.I.R. was lodged under section 498(A) and 302 of the I.P.C. however, the police had submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under section 498 (A) and 306 of the I.P.C.

¶25

It further transpires that charges were framed against the appellant under section 498 (A) and 306 of the I.P.C. on 21.12.2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1 , Bermo at Tenughat ( Bokaro) and to which he

¶26

¶27

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried .

¶28

It transpires that the prosecution had got examined nineteen (19) witnesses in support of its case who are as

¶29

follows:-

¶30

(i) P.W. 1 is Binod Hansda i.e the informant ,

¶31

(ii) P.W. 2 is Hiralal Hansda i.e. declared hostile,

¶32

(iii) P.W. 3 is Dinesh Manjhi,

¶33

(iv) P.W. 4 is Sushila Devi i.e. declared hostile,

¶34

(v) P.W. 5 is Dr. Ajay Kumar Sinha,

¶35

(vi) P.W. 6 is Pinki Kumari,

¶36

(vii) P.W. 7 is Vinita Kumari i.e. declared hostile,

¶37

(viii) P.W. 8 is Ramdas Manjhi i.e. declared hostile,

¶38

(ix) P.W. 9 is Sanjoti Devi i.e. declared hostile,

¶39

(x) P.W. 10 is Ramlal Manjhi i.e. declared hostile,

¶40

(xi) P.W. 11 is Krishan Kumar Hembram i.e. declared hostile,

¶41

(xii) P.W. 12 is Mahavir Manjhi i.e. declared hostile,

¶42

(xiii) P.W. 13 is Lal Kishun Manjhi i.e. declared hostile,

¶43

(xiv) P.W. 14 is Dhani Ram Manjhi i.e.Tendered witnesses

¶44

(xv) P.W. 15 is Sukarmuni Devi i.e. declared hostile,

¶45

(xvi) P.W. 16 is Bale Muni i.e. declared hostile,

¶46

(xvii) P.W. 17 is Ratni Devi i.e. declared hostile,

¶47

(xviii) P.W. 18 is Sridhar Tudu i.e. declared hostile, and

¶48

(xix) P.W. 19 is Nimai Tuddu i.e. declared hostile

¶49

The prosecution in support of its case has got marked the

¶50

following as the Exhibits which are as follows:-

¶51

(i) Exhibit 1 is the Fardbeyan as well as the post-mortem report, Signature on Fardbeyan and

¶52

(ii) Exhibit 2 is post-mortem report

¶53

It is evident from the Lower Court record that Neither

¶54

any defence witness was examined nor any document was marked

¶55

¶56

as the Exhibit on behalf of the defence i.e. the appellant.

¶57

It transpires that I.O. of this case has not been examined and Viscera Report had not been produced on behalf of the prosecution.

¶58

Although the post-mortem report marked as Exhibit -2, shows the death was caused due to poison, however, the learned Court below has acquitted the appellant for the offence under section 306 of I.P.C but has convicted the appellant for the offence under section 498-A of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for the period of 2 ½ years and pay the fine of Rs. 1000/-. 15. It transpires from the Lower Court Record that the appellant was in jail from 21.10.2006 and he was granted bail by the Jharkhand High Court on 10.11. 2008 and he had furnished bail bond on 10.11.2008 and thus he had remained in custody for two years and around one month out of sentence of 2 ½ years .

¶59

Under the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 498-A of I.P.C is affirmed. 17. However, considering the fact in this case, the period during which the appellant remained in custody for two years and around one month sentence for the offence under section 498- A of I.P.C. and the period under gone by the appellant during jail shall period of sentence for committing offence under section 498 -A of the I.P.C.

¶60

Thus, this Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1252 of 2008 stands dismissed with the modification sentence mentioned above. 19. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Court below at once.

¶61

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶62

Bibha/

Rajendra Hembram v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Hembram v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nizam Ansari Alias Nejam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Sunder Yadav Vs Pankaj Yadav

Kurli Kunwar Kulri Kunwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Nunu Prasad Durbay Vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Biresh Chandra Pathak Alias Bidesh Chandra Pathak And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Nizam Ansari Alias Nejam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Sunder Yadav Vs Pankaj Yadav

Kurli Kunwar  Kulri Kunwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Nunu Prasad Durbay Vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Biresh Chandra Pathak Alias Bidesh Chandra Pathak And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Kurli Kunwar Kulri Kunwar Vs State of Jharkhand