[S.302 IPC] Non-Submission Of Murder Weapon For Forensic Examination Not Fatal To Prosecution Case When Direct Evidence Available: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharakhand High Court has upheld a life imprisonment sentence handed to a man by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka, in a murder case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while observing that in cases with direct evidence, the absence of the weapon used in the crime or its forensic examination does not undermine the prosecution's case.

The Division Bench of Justices Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen noted, “In case of a direct evidence, the production of the weapon used in the commission of the crime and not sending the same to FSL for examination will not be fatal to prosecution case and no adverse inference can be drawn.”

As per the factual matrix of the case, one Sonmuni Baskey, the eyewitness and informant, stated in the FIR that on the night of the incident, she was at her maternal uncle's house. She was sleeping in one room with her husband, Dhanai Kisku, while her maternal uncle and aunt were sleeping in another room. She woke up to the screams of her husband and found him with a dagger in his stomach. She removed the dagger and saw the appellant, Doman Murmu nearby. Baskey raised an alarm, waking her maternal uncle and aunt, who came to the scene. She informed them about what had happened. Her husband was then rushed to the hospital but was declared dead upon arrival.

The appellant's counsel argued that Sonmuni Baskey's testimony was unreliable since she didn't witness the actual stabbing but only saw the appellant fleeing the scene. However, the court dismissed this argument, considering that Sonmuni, upon hearing Nesh Kisku's screams, found him with the dagger in his chest and saw the appellant fleeing, thus considering her as an eyewitness despite not directly witnessing the stabbing.

The appellant's counsel also contended that the failure to send the recovered dagger for forensic examination weakened the prosecution's case. The court dismissed this claim, asserting that the case was based on direct evidence.

Another argument by the appellant's counsel was that Baskey, the informant, might have committed the murder herself to live with her second husband, Doman Murmu. The court noted that this theory was unsupported, as the appellant did not claim in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement that Baskey committed the murder or conspired with him. The investigating officer found no evidence of such connivance.

The court concluded that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, affirming the trial court's judgment and dismissing the appeal.

Case Title: Doman Murmu @ Ramdhu Murmu Versus The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 93

Click Here To Download Judgement