Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 JHA 7
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra, B.B. Mangalmurti
Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 22 of 2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 22 of 2016
with
I.A. No. 7271 of 2017
Santosh Kumar Mandal ..... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dhiren Mahato
3. Bhupati Mandal
4. Usman Mian
5. Nizamuddin Ansari @ Raju ..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI
------
For the Informant-Appellant : M/s Manoj Tandon &
Shiv Shankar Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent-State : A.P.P.
For Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate.
--------
10/ 02.05.2018 Heard learned counsel for the informant appellant, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the accused respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Respondent No. 2 has not appeared in spite of the notice.
2. The informant appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 31st of May, 2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in S.T. No. 107 of 2014, whereby the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 5, who were facing the trial for the offences under Sections 364, 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted after the trial. I.A. No. 7271 of 2017, has been filed, seeking leave to appeal against the said Judgment of acquittal.
3. The prosecution case relates to the abduction and murder of the deceased Naren Chandra Mandal, for which, a written application was given before the Jamtara Police Station, by the informant Santosh Kumar Mandal, the son of the deceased on 26.12.2013, stating that on 24.12.2013, his father Naren Chandra Mandal had gone to Jamtara for a meeting with lawyer, but till night he did not return. Thereafter, he was searched by the informant and his family members on 25.12.2013, but he could not be traced out and the information was given at the Police Station. It has further been alleged that the informant and the family members continued with the search of their father and on 26.12.2013 at a petrol pump at Jamtara, they met one Ajay Mandal, who disclosed that he had Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 22 of 2016 -2- seen their father at the bus stand along with 4-5 persons on a motorcycle, who appeared to be sick. The informant and his brothers went towards Jamtara Bus Stand at about 4.30 P.M., and found that his father was sitting on a motorcycle, which was being driven by one Dhiren Mahato, and Janardan Mandal was sitting behind his father on the said motorcycle. It is further alleged that on another motorcycle they saw Bhupati Mandal (accused respondent No. 3) along with two other unknown persons, and upon seeing them, both the motorcycles sped up towards Subhas Chowk. They also chased them up to Subhas Chowk, but as their motorcycle was not in order, they could not chase them further. It has been further alleged that there was enmity with Bhupati Mandal and Janardan Mandal, for which there was a case pending, in which his father was a prime witness. On the basis of the written application, the police case was instituted against Dhiren Mahato, Janardan Mandal and Bhupati Mandal for the offences under Sections 364 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. It appears that subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. Thus, from the F.I.R., it is apparent that only accused respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were made accused in the F.I.R. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against all the accused respondents.
4. The impugned Judgment shows that in course of trial, the prosecution had examined 8 witnesses and in addition, 4 Court witnesses were also examined. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused respondents were acquitted of the charge, finding them not guilty.
5. From the discussions of the witnesses in the impugned Judgment, we find that P.W.-1 Anand Pal had not identified any accused in the Court. P.W.-2 Prahlad Mandal was only a hearsay witness, as informed to him by the informant. He had not deposed anything against the accused persons on his personal knowledge, though he has identified the accused persons in the Court. P.W.-3 Brajendra Nath Mandal and P.W.-4 Ajay Mandal, who had allegedly informed the informant and his brother about the presence of their father at petrol pump, had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case at all.
6. The prosecution case was supported by P.W.-5 Rajeev Mandal, P.W.-6 Ranjit Mandal and P.W.-7 Santosh Mandal, the informant in the case. All these witnesses had stated that upon the information given Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 22 of 2016 -3- by Ajay Mandal, they went to the petrol pump, where they saw Naren Chandra Mandal, the father of the informant, sitting in the middle on the motorcycle, which was being driven by Dhiren Mandal. P.W.-5 Rajeev Mandal and P.W.-7 Santosh Mandal have stated that Janardan Mandal was sitting behind Naren Chandra Mandal on the said motorcycle, but P.W.-6 Ranjit Mandal has stated that Bhupati Mandal was sitting in the back. They have also stated that the other accuseds were on another motorcycle and upon seeing them, they sped up their motorcycles. All these witnesses have stated that they chased the accused persons by motorcycle up to Subhas Chowk, and thereafter the accused persons fled away towards village Gaichand, and they returned back and gave the information at the Police Station. P.W.-5 Rajeev Mandal and P.W.-6 Ranjit Mandal had stated in their cross-examination that they did not raise any alarm while they were chasing the accused persons from the petrol pump up to Subhas Chowk, whereas P.W.-7 Santosh Mandal, the informant, has stated that they were also raising the alarm while chasing the accused persons.
7. The I.O. Mangal Prasad Kujur was examined as P.W.-8 in the case. From his evidence it appeared that dead body was recovered near Maithan Dam, and a motorcycle said to be used in the crime was recovered from Kumar Dubi Railway stand.
8. The evidence of Court witnesses, examined in the Trial Court, shows that they had deposed about the recovery of the dead body and the motorcycle, allegedly used in the alleged occurrence.
9. The Trial Court below has also discussed the findings in the post-mortem report of the deceased, which revealed that though some injuries were there on the dead body, but they were not sufficient to cause the death, rather the death was found to be caused due to drowning. The Court below has also found that even though the FIR was shown to be lodged on 26.12.2013, at Jamtara Police Station, and dispatched to the Court soon thereafter, but it was received in the Court of C.J.M. Jamtara, only on 28.12.2013, and it appeared that the FIR was ante-dated and ante-timed, after the arrest of the accused persons. On the basis of these materials on record, the Trial Court below has found that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and, accordingly, acquitted the accused persons.
Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 22 of 2016 -4-
10. Learned counsel for the informant appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court below is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as P.W.-5 Rajeev Mandal, P.W.-6 Ranjit Mandal and P.W.-7 Santosh Mandal, the informant of the case have fully supported the prosecution case, stating that they had chased the accused persons from petrol pump up to Subhas Chowk, while they were abducting the deceased. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased was recovered. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the offence is clearly made out against all the accused respondents and they ought to have been found guilty, and convicted and suitably sentenced for the offences charged.
11. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the accused respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have opposed the prayer.
12. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the record, we find that there is nothing in the evidence of P.W.-1 to P.W.-4 and the Court witnesses to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime. So far as P.Ws.- 5, 6 and 7 are concerned, they are interested witnesses and they have tried to make improvements over the earlier version given in the F.I.R. According to the F.I.R., the informant and the witnesses had seen only two respondents, namely, respondent No. 2 Dhiren Mahato, and respondent No. 3 Bhupati Mandal, at the petrol pump, where their father was allegedly taken by the accused persons. In the F.I.R. other accused respondents were not named, but in the evidence the witnesses have named the other accused respondents Nos. 4 & 5 also. This apart, P.W.-5 Rajeev Mandal and P.W.-6 Ranjit Mandal have stated that they did not raise any alarm, while chasing the accused persons, which conduct is absolutely doubtful, but P.W.-7 Santosh Mandal, the informant of the case, has made improvement upon this evidence and has stated that they were also raising the alarm while chasing the accused persons.
13. We are of the considered view that the evidence of the supporting prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions and there are improvements made over the statements made in the F.I.R. The trial Court below has also discussed the findings in the post-mortem report of the deceased, which contradicted the prosecution case. The discussions made by the Trial Court about the delay in sending the FIR to the Court, which gave the impression of ante-dating and ante-timing the FIR, also appears to Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 22 of 2016 -5- be cogent. We find from the discussions made in the impugned Judgment that the trial Court has meticulously discussed the evidence on record and has come to the correct conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused respondents beyond all reasonable doubts, and has acquitted them of the charges. We do not find any such inherent illegality / irregularity in the impugned Judgment of acquittal, so as to call for any interference therein by this Court.
14. Since we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal, no question arises of granting leave to any appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7271 of 2017, filed for seeking leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal, stands dismissed.
15. Consequently, the acquittal appeal also stands dismissed, being bereft of any merit. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned along with a copy of this Judgment.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) (B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) Amitesh/-