Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 October, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
1 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.52 of 2023
------
Manoj Kumar Gupta, aged about 30 years, son of Ram Sundar Gupta, resident of Village Bulka, P.O. & P.S. Ramna, District Garhwa .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate
------
06/Dated: 11.10.2023
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
I.A. No.7496 of 2023
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence dated 22.12.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagar Untari, Garhwa, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No.234 of 2021, arising out of Ramna P.S. Case No.17 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1059 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to 2 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023 further undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Sections 201/34 of the IPC.
2. The basis of the prosecution case is the written report of the informant who is father of the deceased. The prosecution case in brief is that on 22.02.2021 at about 4:00 pm informant's son Saddam Hussain went somewhere along with his brother-in-law Sabbir Ansari from his clinic Indian Hospital. Thereafter, his son didn't return home till 24.02.2021, whereas, his son-in-law was in the clinic on that day. When informant inquiry about his son from his son- in-law (damad), then he (son-in-law) told that he didn't know about his son. His son-in-law Sabbir Ansari was working in partnership along with his son Saddam Hussain. Earlier they (Sabbir Ansari and Saddam Hussain) have an argument/bickering between them over some issues. He suspected that his son-in-law Sabbir Ansari committed murder of his son Saddam Hussain along-with his companion and disappearance/hide the dead body.
3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts. Such argument has been made on the following grounds:
(i) The learned court below has failed to take into consideration that P.Ws. 1 to 5 are the hearsay witnesses and they are related to the family of the deceased and P.W. 7 and P.W. 11 are the formal witnesses.
(ii) There was no motive for the appellant to kill the deceased and as such the case of prosecution appears to be false and fabricated 3 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023 because it is the settled position of law that motive is integral part or force behind any commission of crime.
(iii) From the record, it is evident that the confessional statement as made by the appellant, led to the recovery itself is in doubt inasmuch as the information was already in the possession of the police through another accused Sabbir Ansari.
Learned Senior Counsel put his reliance on the judgment, as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.V. Mahesh, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 353.
(iv) The confessional statement of the appellant as such leading to recovery and thereafter, alleged seizure list was prepared, has not bears the signature of appellant and in such scenario, the confessional statement leading to recovery itself is in doubt. The so-called confessional statement which is stated to be of the appellant, has no evidentiary value.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that it is a fit case where the sentence is required to be suspended.
5. While, on the other hand, Mr. Saket Kumar, learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on the following grounds:
(i) In this case, murder of deceased and disappearance of evidence of the offence (conceal the dead body of deceased) are proved and after murder of deceased appellant Manoj Kumar Gupta and another accused Sabbir Ansari hide the dead body into river with intention to disappearance of evidence of the offence.4 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023
(ii) The chain of circumstances in this case is complete and the motive of this incident was clear as per evidence of deceased's father and other family members including prosecution witnesses. As such, in this case none of the prosecution witnesses creates any shadow on prosecution case.
(iii) The Investigating Officer had arrested appellant Manoj Kumar Gupta on 25.02.2021 at 01:40 hour and recorded his confessional statement (Ext-6) on 25.02.2021 at 02:05 hours. As per confessional statement of appellant, Manoj Kumar Gupta and another accused Sabbir Ansari, the dead body of Saddam Hussain was recovered and Kulhari/axe used in the commission of crime was also recovered in the forest (Ext-7).
(iv) There is no signature of appellant Manoj Kumar Gupta on the seizure list (Ext.-7) but only on this basis, the veracity of such statement cannot be doubted, since the police on the basis of such statements has recovered the dead body of the deceased and the axe which was used in the commission of murder of the deceased. To fortify this limb of argument, the learned APP has put his reliance upon the judgment, as has been rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Golakonda Venkateswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2003) 9 SCC 277.
(v) The Investigating Officer of the instant case has obtained C.D.R. (Ext-13) of Mobile of the accused/appellant Manoj Kumar Gupta, by his mobile no. 8340343622, and as per CDR, during 15.02.2021 to 18.02.2021, Sabbir Ansari and Manoj Kumar Gupta have always in contact with each other.5 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023
6. Learned A.P.P, based upon the aforesaid argument, has submitted that it is not a case where sentence is required to be suspended.
7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the finding recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned order as also the testimony of the witnesses including the documents available in Lower Court Records.
8. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of parties and in order to examine as to whether in the given facts of the case it is a fit case where sentence is to be suspended, deems it fit and proper to refer the settled position of law regarding consideration to be made at the time of suspension of sentence, as has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Preet Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 645 has held at paragraphs 32 and 35 as under:
"32. In Mauji Ram v. State of U.P. [ (2019) 8 SCC 17] , this Court referred to Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. [ (2005) 7 SCC], Lokesh Singh v. State of U.P. [ (2008) 16 SCC 753] and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [ (2018) 3 SCC 22] and stated categorically that this Court had time and again emphasised the need for assigning reasons while granting bail.
35. There is a difference between grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC and grant of bail, post-conviction. In the earlier case, there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be 6 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023 liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, as held by this Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 :
(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 675] However, in case of post-
conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial. Rather, the court considering an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors. There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) CrPC."
9. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment, that during considering suspension of sentence under section 389 of Cr.P.C which is the post- conviction stage, the presumption of innocence in favour the accused cannot be available and at this stage, the Court's only duty is to see that the prima-facie case is made out or not.
10. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Anr., (2023) 6 SCC 123 has been pleased to hold that in cases involving conviction under Section 7 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023 302 IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted and while considering the bail the Court should take care of the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the appellate court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 CrPC and try to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs are being quoted herein under:
"31. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra [Vijay Kumar v. Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1195] and Ramji Prasad v.
Rattan Kumar Jaiswal [Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal, (2002) 9 SCC 366 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1197] , it was held by this Court that in cases involving conviction under Section 302IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. In Vijay Kumar [Vijay Kumar v. Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1195] , it was held that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302IPC, the court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. 8 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023
33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the endeavour on the part of the court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the trial court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the abovesaid question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually takes very long for decision and disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The appellate court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 CrPC and try to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach."
11. We are now proceeding to examine material available on record and the rival submissions advanced on behalf of parties.
12. From perusal of the record, it is evident that in the instant case on the basis of confessional statement of appellant Manoj Kumar Gupta (Ext.6) and another accused Sabbir Ansari (Ext.4) an 9 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023 axe/kulhari (weapon) used in the occurrence/crime and the dead body of the deceased has recovered from underneath of the stone in the forest and from the river bed respectively which was hidden by them.
13. For ready reference, the confessional statement of the accused/appellant Manoj Kumar Gupta is being quoted as under:
" हमारा नाम मनोज कुमार गु ा उ करीब 31 वष, िपता- राम सु र राम, सा० चु ा, थाना-रमना, िजला-गढ़वा है । आज िदनां क 25.02.2021 को समय 02:05 बजे आप रमना थाना के पुिलस पदािधकारी के सम अपने घर ाम- बु ा, थाना-रमना, िजला - गढ़वा मे िबना िकसी, डर, भय या लोभन के यह जानते ए िक मेरे ारा िदया गया यह ीकारो ान ायालय मे मेरे िव होगा, अंिकत कराता हॅू िक हमलोग तीन भाई और दो बहन होते है । मेरी ार क िश ा, उ िव ालय, धुरकी से ई है । इं टरमीिडयट की िश ा शंकर ताप दे व् महादईया, नगर ऊँटारी से ई है तथा ातक टॉउनिशप कॉलेज, भवनाथपुर से पुरा िकये है । ातक उपरां त क ूटर की बेिसक पढ़ाई कर एक ु िडयों दु कान धुरकी थाना अ गत ाम सगमा मे खोला था। उसके बाद सगमा म दु कान बंद कर अपने ही गाँ व बु ा मे एक िकराना दु कान तथा कपड़ा दु कान चलाता ँ । आज से करीब 15 िदन मेरे ही गाँ व के सबीर अंसारी िपता-गु रलम करार असारी मुझे फोन कर कुछ पैसे की लोग कर रहा था। मेरे पास पैसा नही रहने के कारण म नहीं दे पाऊँगा बोला। पुनः दो-तीन िदन बाद फोन कर मुझसे पैसे की मां ग करने लगा। इस पर म बोला िक मुझे बोलेरो गाड़ी खरीदना है पैसा नहीं दे पाऊँगा । पुनः दो-तीन िदन बाद सबीर अंसारी से रमना बाजार मे िमला। इस पर सबीर अंसारी ारा मुझे बताया गया िक डॉ र स ाम सैन का गलत संबंध िकसी लड़की के साथ है तथा डॉ स ाम सैन की प ी शबनम बीबी से म िदलो जान से ार करता ँ । मै उसे अपनी प ी बनाना चाहता ँ । डॉ स ाम सैन का नजायज संबंध िकसी लड़की के साथ होने के कारण मेरी ेिमका तथा उसकी प ी शबनम बीबी से अ र छगड़ा होते रहता है जो मुझे नागवार लगता है । म चाहता ँ िक डॉ स ाम सैन की ह ा कर मेरे ार के रा े मे आये रोड़ा को साफ करना चाहता ँ ा ऐसा कोई है जो डॉ स ाम सैन की ह ा कर सकता है । इसके बदले मे मै उसे 50000/- पये दुं गा। िनकट भिव मे मुझे एक बोलेरो खरीदना था तथा मुझे पैसे की तंगी चल रही थी। इस वजह से 50000/- पये का लोभन म आकर डॉ स ाम सैन की ह ा करने का िज ा मै खुद ले 10 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023 िलया तथा सािबर अंसारी से िमलकर एक ान तय िकये। डॉ स ाम सै न को पैसे िक आव कता थी इस बात को सबीर अंसारी बोला िक म िकसी तरह से डॉ साहब को कज पर पै से िदलाने के नाम पर तु ारे शराब भ ी जो डोंिगयवा नदी के िकनारे है वहाँ ले आएँ गे। वहीं हम और तुम िमलकर उसकी ह ा कर वहीं कही शव को छु पा दे ग। इस बात की जानकारी िकसी को नही हो पाएगीं। ान के अनुसार िदनां क 22.02.2020 को सबीर असारी मुझसे रमना बाजार म करीब 17:30 बजे िमला और मुझे 50000/- पये िदया। इस पैसे को मै अ खलेश िबयार एवं प ू िबयार के CSP के म जाकर मश: 30000/- एवं 20000 /- पये कुल 50000/- पये (पचास हजार पये) अपने SBI एकाउं ट सं ा 32497676462 मे जमा िकया। िजसके बाद म िजससे पुराना बोलेरो लेने के िलए बात िकया था उसके एकाउं ट मे प ीस-प ीस हाजार पये करके दो बार मे कुल 50000/- पये डाल िदया। उसके बाद मै ान के अनुसार बु ा मौड़ (पीपर तर) प ँ चा जहाँ सबीर अंसारी और स ाम सैन पहले से ही बु ा मोड के पासे के ए थे। उसके बाद ान के अनुसार मै, डॉ स ाम अंसारी से बोला िक कज का पैसा लेने के िलए बु ा डोिगयवा नदी थत जहाँ मेरा दा की भ ी है वहाँ चिलय । इस पर डॉ स ाम अंसारी चलने के िलए तैयार हो गये। तब मै और सबीर अंसारी, डॉ स ाम सैन को लेकर बु ा मोड से चल िदय। उसके बाद म तथा सबीर अंसारी, डॉ स ाम सैन को लेकर मोटरसाईिकल से लेकर ाम-बुलका थत पंचायत भवन तथा पोखरा होते ए ाम-बुलका जंगल मे थत डोिगयवा नदी के घने जंगल म थत झाझ (झरना) के पास ले गये। झरना के पास प ँ चने पर डॉ स ाम सैन बोले िक अरे हमलोग कहाँ आ गये सह झरना तो ब त गहरा है इतना बोलकर वह पीछे मुडे तब तक मै तथा सबीर अंसारी मौका पाकर ध ा दे िदये िजससे डॉ स ाम सैन झरना म नीचे िगर गये। हमलोग जब नीचे उतरे तो दे खे की डॉ स ाम सैन बेहोश है । िफर हमदोनो अपने साथ िलये कु ाडी से बारी-बारी से सर तथा चेहरा पर वार कर स ाम सैन की ह ा कर िदये। उसके बाद सा िमटाने के उददे से शव को वही च ान के अंदर खोह (गुफा) मे छु पाकर रख िदये। उसके बाद घटना म यु कु ाडी को वही बगल के च ान के चे छु पाकर रख िदये। उसके बाद डॉ स ाम सैन का मोबाईल तथा मोटरसाईिकल कर सबीर अंसारी, रमना के िलए चल िदया तथा मे अपने घर बु ा आ गया। मुझे पुिलस मेरे घर से िगर ार की है जहाँ मै अपने े ा से डॉ स ाम सैन की ह ा कर शव + को छु पा दे ने के अपराध को ीकार कर रहा ँ । मै डॉ स ाम सैन के शव को डोंगवा नदी थत 11 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023 झाझ (झरना) के पास जहाँ मै तथा सबीर अंसारी छु पाकर रखे है वहाँ से शव को बरामद करवा सकता ँ तथा घटना म यु कु ाड़ी को भी बरामद करवा सकता ँ।
यही हमारा ीकारो ान है । अपना ान पढ़कर, समझ िलये तथा सही
िलखा अपने े ा से अपना ह ा र बना िदये।"
14. The foremost argument which has been advanced on behalf of appellant is that the confessional statement of the appellant as such leading to recovery and thereafter alleged seizure list was prepared has not bears the signature of appellant and in such scenario the confessional statement leading to recovery itself is in doubt.
15. At this juncture the application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is required to be considered.
16. As per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the part of the confessional statement is admissible, on the basis of which, the seizure of weapon used in this incident, has been made.
17. It is settled proposition of law that for the application of Sec. 27 of the Act the statement must be split into its components and to separate the admissible portion and only those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be legal evidence.
18. It is also well settled principle that recovery must be of a fact which was relevant to connect it with the commission of the crime for which the accused has been charged and statement leading to recovery of weapon only is admissible.
19. In the context of the argument as advanced by the learned senior counsel, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex 12 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023 Court in the case of Ahmed Shah Khan Durrani @ A.S. Mubarak S Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine SC 251, while relying upon the judgment passed in Prasad Ramakant Khade v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 8 SCC 493 has observed as under "483. The submission made by Shri Mushtaq Ahmad that the evidence of recovery cannot be relied upon for the reason that the same did not bear the signature of the appellant/accused (A-42), is not worthy of being accepted [Vide: State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, (supra); and Prasad Ramakant Khade v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 8 SCC 493 (para 8)]"
20. Further, in Golakonda Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P. [(2003) 9 SCC 277 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1904] Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the view and held that the discovery statement of an accused leading to recovery of crime articles from concealed place, even though the discovery statement and the recovery memo did not bear the accused's signature, the fact of recovery from the well and dug out was from the place which was pointed out by the appellant and therefore, such discovery was voluntary. That the recovery was in consequence to the information given was fortified and confirmed by the discovery of the apparel worn and skeletal remains of the deceased, therefore, the information and statement cannot be held to be false.
21. Now coming back to the fact of the instant case, it is evident that the Medical Officer (P.W.9) who conducted the autopsy on the dead 13 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023 body of the deceased has also found the death was caused by shock and hemorrhage on account of injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon. As such the part of confessional statement of the appellant was substantiated by the testimony of the doctor who has performed the autopsy on the dead body of deceased.
22. Further, the Investigating Officer of the instant case has obtained C.D.R. (Ext-13) of Mobile of the accused/appellant Manoj Kumar Gupta, by his mobile no. 8340343622, and as per CDR, during 15.02.2021 to 18.02.2021, Sabbir Ansari and Manoj Kumar Gupta have always in contact with each other.
23. Therefore, from the above facts, scrutinized oral and documentary evidences available on the record, prima-facie indicates the participation of accused/appellant in commission of murder of informant's son Dr. Saddam Hussain (deceased) by axe/kulhari and thereafter, his dead body was hide in a river bed.
24. Considering the same, we are of the view that it is not a case where the sentence is to be suspended.
25. Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A. No.7496 of 2023 stands dismissed.
26. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
27. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the appellant through Jail Superintendent.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Rohit/- (Navneet Kumar, J.)