Patna High Court - Orders
Mantu Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 6 July, 2021
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh, Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1505 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2016 Thana- DHANSOI District- Buxar
======================================================
Mantu Ram, S/o Vinod Ram, R/o village- Baradih, P.S.- Kochas, District-
Rohtas.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sada Nand Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH)
7 06-07-2021Heard Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State via video conferencing.
The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even according to the prosecution case, there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence, who has stated that the appellant was ever seen at the place of occurrence on or after the occurrence. He contended that it is an out and out a case of circumstantial evidence. There is not a single Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1505 of 2019(7) dt.06-07-2021 2/3 circumstance to connect the appellant with the alleged occurrence. According to him, the occurrence is said to have taken place on 27th December, 2016 and, on 15th February, 2017, a skeleton of human body is said to have been recovered from the place which is said to have been indicated by the appellant. The aforesaid skeleton was sent for medical test and it was found that it is a skeleton of a middle aged person and not of a young boy and the same skeleton was not of deceased, as the same is apparent from the medical report as contained in exhibit-7.
On the other hand, Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the informant is the father of the deceased Rahul Mishra. In his written report, he has stated that his son Rahul Mishra had gone to his matrimonial uncle's house on 26.12.2016 in the morning and he proceeded from the matrimonial uncle's house on 27.12.2016, but could not reach his native village. Learned counsel for the State has further contended that the informant received a ransom call on 29.12.2016 for payment of Rs.15 lakhs in lieu of release of his son. He further contended that from the evidence of PW-5, the investigating officer, it would appear that during investigation one Manto Pandey was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1505 of 2019(7) dt.06-07-2021 3/3 apprehended, who accepted his involvement in the alleged occurrence and disclosed the name of other accused persons. Thereafter, the appellant was apprehended on 15.02.2017 and he disclosed that he murdered the deceased Rahul Mishra along with Mantu Pandey @ Mananjay Pandey, Dhuran Ram, Bada Babu, Teja and Om Prakash Singh at Kaimur Hill near Belhar village and threw the dead body in the buses. All his apparel and shoes were thrown on the other side of the bush so that the body could not be identified. The appellant took the investigating officer to the place where the body was thrown and from there, a skeleton in mutilated condition was also recovered.
Having heard the parties and perused the evidence on record, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. The prayer for bail is rejected.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) sanjeet/-
U T