Jharkhand High Court
Kokil Singh Sardar vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 January, 2016
Equivalent citations: 2016 (2) AJR 436, (2016) 2 JLJR 500
Cr. Anneel {DBJ No. 35 onOfla
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 21,9200"? and 25.9.2007
respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
(EKG--II) Sereikele--Kltarsewen in Sessions 'l'riel Case
210. 93 of 2004 corresponding to GR. Case no 293 of
2004 Nirntlih RES. Case No. 32 of 2004-)
Kokil Singh Settle-r S/o Late Heldher Singh Serder R/o Village
Bhangad, PS Nimclin DisLt. Sereikelle Khnrswen -
...... .. Appellant
We.
The State of Jharklrmd ........ .. Respondent
eel-sine K.
' next-ere
\,
lennnm' '
'77 Nemeet Sonny,
'- jaFor'the appellant
w Salish KLnner lies}= '
J'For the respond e111: 5;
_jl{etna_ker 31162115511133
This Criminal A" see I inertbeen preferred
the judgment of o *5th I tit-en 21.9.2002? anti enter
of sentence dated by the reeditlo-nel
Seer-stone: judged": «'s'eenen " ler'seygre'n in
conneenqe _ lee 2004,
C01"? arising out
of Nirnclih E3. nef'fifrota-E004,wl1ereby the sole
appellant Kolo'i Singh Barrier has been convicted for the
offence punishable under section '302 IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
with a fine of Rs. 2000/», convicted for the offenoe
punishable under section 1366 IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for five year and line
of Rs. 1000/", with e. conviction. uis 201 IPC' rigorous
imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
All the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution as it appears
from the i'arcl--beyen of ene Rewti Singh, wife of (levied
Singh of village Nimclih, ES. Niflldlh, Dietrict Saraikellan
Kharsatwen, recorded by 53.11 B.B.Pra.eed Yedav of
Nimdih PS, is that she is a widow, and clue to pain in
her legs she hail ciifllculty in walking ehcmt. Her only
support is her daughter, Alolre Singlt. For the leet three
months one Kokll Singh, 5/0 Heldher Singh Serder,
village Bhagetli, P53 Nimrlih, Dietrict Sereikelle
Khersawan used to meme and forcibly have Sexual
relation with herdeeghtee --Wlielt,. "peed re object then
3:01:11 Siertlif " 1
'tlletiille;Weill
' leifrying Aloka
aziigl'lle as fhlle'etlnd m "Kiley; l}
'7 'rlbge and ant-3110111 that]:
'f
élngh from
' marriage.
attempted to preve,_._ I
1 daughter; then he _ neck and puellel'l _;t1.er
away. When he wee away, both she eigicl her
daughter ecreameclje I I I
. .ieeclfelmn, but thallii'lt
'mmmg and Winds " '19 Ellie t0 Whig??? 110 bed}?
here-£12911; and Jthlle maze" 75 t9; '
them and
011
23.4.20031!' raised that Alolra Singh'e deed/"155w "is; 7' lying at Purnopeni, Plaehtend, _.a11d that some one has strengulated and assaulted her with stones and killed her. The villagers
- informed this to the Police Station. 7
3. She has alleged that Koliil Sing'h was for the last three months coming to their house and under the promise of marriage raping Make and then on the pretext of marriage tool: her away to E)an field at _Pu.rnepani Plaehtand and stranguleted her e3 well as hit her with smiles and murdered her.
4. The Police after noting the aired-brawn of a Rawti Sihgh , infomiaht registered oaae as RS, Case no. 32 of 2004i. The police after due investigation submitted charge sheet and accordingly cognizance was taken. Since, the offence for which the accused person was charge sheeted was exclusively triahle by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial no. 93 of 2004:.
5. The charge under section 302,366, 3201 IPC were framed, "hut; 'the.-.-..aocasaciup rson pleading not guilty - examined ajlto-gether' As'é'iieo'irrithesae : then-charges, _ That-loathed Sessioii 31' at the oohoi-iifsioh the trial 'heici the 362,366 and 201 1a __ undergo rigorous life 'iflipl'fifiififliflefl't with filler Heiice, W5 for the offeh-oos "ti/S tiingiy sentenced: high: 'to this; appeal. _ __ _ _ I The prosecutioh; altogether seven ' _' Witnesses h PW": ' PW~2 Birha-i'ChaaEira " .fJE-'ngi siesta:- rD-"a's,i3W¥4 1 Sitiéii @ RaEWaniSitigh; Shat'ad Gaotfa'igj' handra Dos, PWQ'7'Dr:_La;1aa i '7. Rewati'SihghfPWéfii, sihformaat has stated in her witness that Aloha Sihghwas her 013.137 daughter and she was dependent on her. On. the last "Baisakh'hn a Friday, around 7 pm, the accused Kokii Shigh forcibly took Aloha away from the house. He said he was going to marry her . The girl did not want to go, and she told him to desist but he forcibly took her away. When she told him not to take Aloha away, he grabbed her neck and-pushed her away, or a result she feii down. She raised alarm, but since it was raining no body came. The next day, she received information that the dead
4. body of her daughter was lying in the jungle. of Puroepeni, Pleehteod. Due to being 111 and incapable, she could not go to see the body. She eont ihformetiou about this; through villagers to the Police Station and then the police came to the village at 12:00 noon, sew the dead body and thereafter her ford-heme was recorded , they read it out to her , which she heard and then put her thumb impreeeioh on it. Before the incident the accused used to talk about marrying her I had informed her the; i 7 deediihody wee at :fifie next dey. dictihot ee :i'azibout "- estii'iietion came at 1' thief .; 1. . .,
8. that on the morning of the"253:7.29'041"around 8 am. He was going to Bemni village vie. Purhepeoi. When he reached the Pumepani Pieeh Jungle, then he saw the dead body of a girl. He recognized the body as that of Aloha Sihgh, the daughter of Rewati Singh of Nimdih. Yhere was an injury on the mouth and forehead of the deceased, and blood had come out from the mouth. He informed people at Nithdih, Pureepehi village and also Rewati Siogh. When Rewati Singh was informed , then she told that last evening around "7 13.111. the accused Kohii Singh had come to her house, pushed her, and telling he is 5 going to impose himaeli' on her daughter, tool; her away. The village people had informed the police and the police hoe come and see the dead body. The police prepared the lnqueet "Report and he and one Ashol:
Elinin put their signature on the report. The witness recognized his signature and that of Aehok Singh, and were marked as l and Exti/A respectively. He has aleo eaiol at the time the accused tool: Aloha Sigh away. it was raining . heavily. He has; aleo identifieii the accused in Cotirtr. -. __
9. ' alias etateti that he "home L ' 7 " fiiorthil'he _' t.
dedeféieed wee from.
Police made eioort which iiiiigh read outandthen r flgnecl it. s .10; P'W~7 Dr. etttihary has smite his 'Ievicienoe that noted the 'post rho-item examination of "hotly. Sing'h, Elgtild__iéb(fil§£30 '_ Yet-its" . female, clarity nae Govind resfitlent " re ram-a tile to are.
11I.I- ' TIC-Chitneion. on frontal rem-011...};tight"attire iii-ladle part. over left phalanx of Hover-"left thigh outer aspect, over left knee outer aspect. He has attributed came of death to pressure over neck and month. He has also ruled out abrasions: to he result of trifling and also except for injuriee no. 4 and 5, also not possible by vehicular accident.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was comfortable relations hetvteen the mother, daughter and Kokil Singh, the appellant. The mother in fact was comfortable with the relation that her daughter had with the appellant and they were e hoping that Sooner or later Kohil Sihgh would marry the daughter. Hence, nothing adverse should be drawn from the fact that the daughter and Kokil Siogh were last seen by the mother, since they were comfortable with the relationship.
13. Further there hate been considerable delay in the lodging of the FIR. In. fact the mother, Reweti Singh. PW~1 has informed. that Aloha 531th was taken away by the appellant at 7 p.111. on Friday, hut her fare--
i. iri'th'e' me Whig" 'jorueveh on mt" hight itse l "'tlgecl aloha-11o aht' {when villagers info: hit the dead lying in the jungle of fil'then only she the .Ehiatter via some ville", . ' the police.
14:. Moreoveij"nthefboflyLevee found in ie not in t rer'fh-ahroute to the {villagers-end tbtfflfi'l-'iot attirth-e'r Says 12hetther ". entire case hence, he cannot be held guilty of Aloha Siogh .
15. Learned ARR has countered the arguments; of counsel for the apple-11am and said that the fact that he was last seen by the mother of the girl, when he had come to take her away would be a strong factor to point the fingers of suspicion on him. That too when. he wee last Seen it was in violent circumstances in that, the mother and daughter were both. resisting the daughter being taken away and they raised alarm too, but the appellant dragged her away. llolclihg out the pretext of marriage would only add to his crime. So the feet that .7 the appellant was last seen in a 17 hours Span when the FIR was lodged would arose Strong enepioione. The argnment that they were in a oomfortahle relationship"
is not borne out by the testimony of the mother.
lfil Learned APP has replied that the "delay in lodging of the FIR is simply heoanee it was not knonm to the mother, to what had happened to the girl. Ellie may have expected her to return eo she rightly lodged FIT-5t, when ehe came to know of her fate and the police came to her heneielmfio thegdelay is easily explained. Regarding deedghhdgtheing inthe jungles, or not nemenelite; we. hate see- 1e,- deem Pia-Mi Ptilnap._anigf_ho_ 'eome'peeplE3 need that Regarding-f- the learned-em? has stated. that the nannie- baeed on eiroumetanttel evidence does not case, because there strong circumstaneeeageinet ' appellant. l-le _.e}as leet seienhy' the mother'efthe girlfinua heetile eituatlon'. He her away- end'WhS fettnd henna so all the palette the gnilt efjthe ellant.
18. llevlhg of both oouneele and having seen the doonm'ente and records of the case in the t'aote and circumstances the folloWing observations can he "made.
19. No doubt, it was a case of last seen As already seen, the daughter was last Seen on the night of 22.4.2004 at 7 pm, when Kokil Singh J the appellant in a Violent manner dragged the only daughter and bread Winner of the sick and incapable mother. Both, the mother and daughter deeisted and raised alarm but all theee fell on the deaf ears of the appellant who was bent on having his way. He even assaulted the old, sink e and incapable lady; when ehe heed resisting him. and he puehed her back by grabbing her heels: an cl ehe fell down. Ii; eeeme '|;haL he had already been. ueiiig her fer his Sexual ple-aeare on. the pretexi of marriage anal even on that he said that he is liaising her away for marrying hezhlt is argued that daughter and Iiioizhei"
were comfortable I'eg'ai'iliag their relatiejrishijp with the appellant. 'lf'his may only be because they were two idem? lacliee, one old, eieh and. incapable , the other younger"
and the sole enemy: -£;1f.-ll_].E}_Ifu mother. "l."l:1e mother and clan glitter" ' aiviheir' liaiserahle exieteaeefizi.a'flue mail. he 'hWI'ierglf" hesigaaifaat in the village; but on... iiie" __O'l1'l}rai*-y_ SGGIQ'J,ES""-Ilfl("33l; vile and scheming" aiici only" 'hehiiehfliie getting hie _ And in any Way ii"- _ al'ife' fly been held lay-ii i-e Apex Court, that even aweihail gel" easy Vllf'l'lle entitled to her dignity. Just _=1ilie poor woman heel earlier eaicl yes, does not rhea-iii.she-eahhoi; say no. Hi3ace..filihe daughter was IlOl; melee-.séen with the ap-figiellahi, but '- aleo eeeh cit-cammnmaaim: igaa'iieleni'aad not a't'all geisha};-
- \
20. Regardihgif'ijhge' delay ii: hae also some what been explalhed'by the counsel for the prosecution, the APP and it is rightly poiii'teci out that the delay was simply explained. If it can he really called a delay that is. The mother has Stated. that when_ Kekil Sihgh, the appellant dragged her away it was '7 pm. and raining heavily, and being old, sick , incapable and having been pushed and probably hurt from the fall ehe had, anti because of the exertions She had. made in resisting Kokil Sihgh, she simply may not have been in a position to go out and tell others at '7 pm. when. it was heamrily raining. So it is only when She ie informed. of the gruesome murder by the villagers and the villagers again inform. the police, and the police then come to her residence, that she to able to lodge her ferclnbeyan with the police so given her circumstances- thle delay is perfectly explained. and made within M; hoan cannot also he considered e delay.
21. Regorcllng the arguments about the hotly not being found in a normal route or way to the deceased persons: village. This is a. very weak argument, because, what is normal here relative. For the appellant :lt wee_;o:ct._'m)"'h1*1333\nd. ll; Wee-not normal for 11mlle fill-homer I10lll§3flfilfl that a gocclgl'place to tlee'd'qliody. Hermite" "t'o'rlviwa Blrhel Chandra Gotta ,_. 0' he need to":
oonle to Nlmdih, he. m1 and on that Holeyfwas;
using the Pomonale fieehtend jungle route-:- eo it seemed neual and normal: hint, So what is; normal ls relative here! and enoer , ll; is the necel route, while for the appellalfrt Inltanejrflhare seen ear-good place telcllepoeeflof the-hoof};- Mortar-leer," it doee'not eeen that the }_Wee' Very far .eweysenfit hec'etese l-ij'z, says the Eleoeeeecl t'ro'rnthe Village and. he knew her. - I I 2.2. The final leg of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is; that the case against the appellant is purely of presumption and circumstantial .
This is a case in which the actual murder of" the woman hag not been witnessed. by anyone, so it is one that has to rest on Clrcumstential evidence. The learned counsel for the State, the APP is correct when l1: says; there are strong circumstances against the appellant. He was last seen by the mother of the girl, ln a hostile Situation and.
be dragged her away, against her will, and her (lead 10 body was found Within 17 hours when the fard--hayan was lodged. So one cannot but he in agreement with this , and the fingers of suspicion rather conclusively point to the appellant, Kolril Binge Apart from the aforementioned arguments, PW--2 has deposed. that he saw the dead body at 8 am. in. the morning, so that is within. 13 hours, between '7' p.111 of the 224.20% and 8' am. On 23.4.2004, Aloha Sing'h was lolled. The defence counsel. has not said as to where he had taken Aloha Singh away betweeep Lthesehoprs, but rather tried to raise that: I a comfortable He does "deny tale ' what befalls her So he to span. of "'hoitr_.=-fiioni erasing till morning;le '7 __ ' Zijanother thing FWQ has said which strengthensthesase of the proseoutioii. PW--2 has deposed that went to inform Singh about the "fate deceased. when: he recognized, she told Singhhad conio are-Lind" -7_p.m. in had pushedher so eat she felldo'ivfileucl'rthso t.a1$s'€l_her as he is goingtohimp'ose timer on "he: aspect the fard--hayah of Retired "'Siotjh' her deposition and the deposition of PW--2 corroborate each other, so even if she may he the single witness to fortunately part of the incident, it is natural and consistent and reliable.
23. Doe other aspect that though small may considered, is that in the house of Rewati, the appellant"
had applied pressure on the neck of Rowati Singh, PW« 1 and pushed her back so that she fall. In the report of the doctor One of the causes of death indicated is pressure over neck, and mouth and there has been no racetrer of any weapon instrumental in. the killing, :1 hence this may indicate his inclination to uee his bare hands to inflict violence.
24. _ Having gone through the arguments, dooumente and records, in the facts and Circumstances of the case this Court is conclusively led. to conclude in upholding the conviction and sentences of the Sessions Court ageinet the appellant . Hence, his conviction. for offences under sections 302,366 and 201 IPC'. are upheld, and the senfiences of R1. for life with a. fineof Rs. 2000/», five within. "fine of'Re. 1000/- and three 7' J '
-. . _ , all to run . ding-13C diemiesefil. ~ (D.N.Upédhya§r, 31.3 j_ r _ L, (Ratnaker Bhé'ngra, ii.) jlinrkhmid High Court. Renclii Dated: 14.01.2016 Nibhfi ff NJLHRM