Jharkhand High Court
State Of Bihar vs Jaipal Ram & Ors on 12 January, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 AJR 354
Author: Pradip Kumar Mohanty
Bench: Ananda Sen, Pradip Kumar Mohanty
1
Govt. Appeal No. 5 of 1995 (R)
With
Cr. Revision No. 30 of 1995 (R)
(Against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.1.1995 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 93 of 81/ 281 of 86)
-----
In Govt. Appeal No. 5 of 1995 (R)
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ...... ...... Appellant
Versus
1. Jaipal Ram, S/o Jagannath Ram, R/o Kund Mohalla, PS Sadar
Daltonganj, District Palamau
2. Kamal Nayan Singh, S/o Rajendra Prasad Singh, R/o Station Road, PS
Sadar Daltonganj, District Palamau
3. Shailendra Kumar Singh @ Shailendra Singh, S/o Late Dr. Sita Ram
Singh, R/o Station Road, PS Sadar Daltonganj, District Palamau
4. Alok Kumar Verma @ Bholi, S/o M.K. Verma, R/o Jail Hata, PS Sadar
Daltonganj, District Palamau
5. Sanjay Sahay, S/o Sri B. N. Sahay, R/o Jail Hata, PS Sadar Daltonganj,
District Palamau
6. Kiran Kumar Singh, S/o Late Durga Shankar Singh, R/o Jail Hata, PS
Sadar Daltonganj, District Palamau.
...... ...... Respondents
In Cr. Revision No. 30 of 1995 (R)
Uma Kant Singh, Son of Shri Kaleshwar Singh, Resident of
Mohalla Nawatoli, PS Sadar (Daltonganj), District Palamau
..... ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipal Ram, S/o Budhan Ram, R/o Mohalla Kund, PS Daltonganj Sadar,
District Palamau
2. Kamal Nayan Singh, S/o Rajendra Prasad Singh, R/o Mohalla Nawatoli,
PS Daltonganj Sadar, District Palamau
3. Shailendra Kumar Singh @ Shailendra Singh, S/o Sita Ram Singh, R/o
Station Road, Daltonganj, PS Daltonganj Sadar, District Palamau
4. Alok Kumar Verma @ Bholi, S/o Sri M.K. Verma, R/o Mohalla Jail Hata,
PS Daltonganj Sadar, District Palamau
5. Sanjay Sahay, S/o Sri N. Sahay, R/o Mohalla Jail Hata, PS Daltonganj
Sadar, District Palamau
6. Kiran Kumar Singh, S/o Late Durga Shankar Singh, R/o Mohalla Jail
Hata, PS Daltonganj Sadar, District Palamau.
..... ...... Opp. parties
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, A.P.P.
For the Respondents : Mrs. Priya Shreshth, Advocate
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
By Court:- Both, Government Appeal and Criminal Revision, are directed
against the judgment dated 20.1.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, 2 Dhanbad in S.T. No. 93 of 81/ 281 of 86, whereby the trial court has acquitted all the respondents from the charges under Sections 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that, on 19.10.1980 at 11:00am, deceased-Rajiv Ranjan Singh, who was residing with his father- Kauleshwar Singh at Daltonganj, left his residence for local bus stand for purchasing a ticket for going to Patna. When he did not return by 12:30pm, his younger brother-Umakant Singh (informant) went out in search of him on a rickshaw, as his brother-Rajiv Ranjan Singh had not been found at the bus stand, the informant turned back to his residence at Mohalla Nawatoli of Daltonganj town on the same rickshaw. When at about 12:45pm, his rickshaw reached near Kutchary more, he found two jeeps standing there, one facing north and another facing east. In between he saw accused-Jaipal Ram, Shailendra Singh, Kamal Nayan Singh and Sanjay Sahay assaulting his brother-Rajiv Ranjan Singh. At the same place, accused-Alok Kumar Verma @ Bholi was sitting at the steering of the jeep facing north. Accused-Kiran Kumar Singh along with about 4 to 5 unknown young men was also standing near the jeep. According to FIR, accused-Jai Pal Ram was armed with 'garasa' whereas accused-Sanjay Sahay with 'bhujali' and accused-Kamal Nayan Singh was with 'rod'. When the informant saw his brother being assaulted by accused-Jai Pal Ram, Shailendra Singh, Kamal Nayan Singh and Sanjay Sahay, he raised alarm for rescue of his brother but when the accused persons rushed towards him for assaulting, he fled away. At the same time, Sudhir Kumar Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, Ramendra Kumar Singh and Sanjay Kumar Sinha arrived there and the accused persons fled away from there. Accused-Kamal Nayan Singh drove away jeep facing east in the same direction and accused-Alok Kumar Verma @ Bholi drove away the other jeep towards kutchary. When the informant reached home, he narrated about the incident to his father-P.W.13 (Kaleshwar Singh), who 3 was an officer of the Forest Department, and both of them rushed to the place of occurrence on the official jeep. At the place of occurrence, they were told that Sudhir Kumar Singh and others had taken Rajiv Ranjan Singh to Sadar Hospital and immediately they went to the hospital and there they found that Rajiv Ranjan Singh (deceased) was bleeding from his head and the brain matter was coming out from the rear side. The deceased was admitted in the hospital but he succumbed to his injuries at about 3:00pm on the same day. In the meantime, on getting information, the Sub-Inspector of Daltonganj Police Station reached at the hospital and recorded the statement / fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of informant -Umakant Singh.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the informant, Daltonganj P.S. Case No. 21 of 1980 was registered for the offence under Section 147, 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-respondents. After registering the case, the investigation was carried out and after preparing the inquest report (Ext.4) of the deceased, the dead-body was sent for postmortem examination. In the meantime, investigation was entrusted to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).
4. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-respondents under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and the charges were framed under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused- respondents and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
The plea of the defence is complete denial of the allegation except accused-Kamal Nayan Singh and Alok Kumar Verma @ Bholi who took the plea of alibi.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 20 witnesses, including the doctor and the Investigating 4 Officer. The prosecution has also examined 10 witnesses on behalf of the defence. The trial court after appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record, did not find the accused-respondents guilty for committing murder of the deceased and accordingly acquitted the respondents from the charges, which is under challenge. The trial court acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them on the following findings:-
i. There is delay in lodging the FIR.
ii. P.W.14 said that the respondents have assaulted the deceased indiscriminately but from the evidence of P.W. 19-Dr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, it appears that the deceased has sustained only four injuries.
6. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, counsel for the appellant-State, has assailed the judgment of the trial court and submitted that the informant-P.W. 14 (brother of the deceased), who has claimed to be the eye witness, has specifically stated about the role played by the respondents in committing murder of the deceased with deadly weapons. The informant - P.W. 14 reached home and narrated the incident to his father and then both of them rushed to the hospital where they found deceased-Rajiv Ranjan Singh to be admitted and the blood was oozing from his head and the brain matter was coming out from the rear side and the deceased succumbed to his injuries at about 3:00pm on the same day. There is inimical relationship between the deceased and Shashi Barnwas. The presence of P.W. 14 was highly probable and hence the trial court ought not to have discarded the evidence of P.W.14, who claimed to be the eye witness. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the learned trial court has committed grave illegality and infirmity in acquitting the respondents from the charges.
7. On the other hand, Mrs. Priya Shreshth, learned counsel for 5 the respondents, has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-State and submitted that since there is inimical relationship with the respondents, the trial court acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges by placing reliance upon the evidences of P.W.13 (father of the deceased) and hence, the findings arrived at by learned trial court do not require any interference by this Court. She further submitted that informant-P.W.14 (brother of the deceased) was not present at the spot as after seeing the occurrence, he without taking the injured to the hospital ran to his house for calling his father-P.W.13. She further submitted that there is one day delay in lodging the FIR. It was further submitted that in the instant case, ocular evidence does not tally with the medical evidence and therefore, serious doubt has been created regarding the presence of P.W. 14 at the time of assault. It is further submitted that it is the duty of the hospital to intimate the police station immediately but the FIR was lodged by P.W.14 (brother of the deceased) after one day's delay.
8. We have heard learned counsel for both sides and also perused the materials available on record.
9. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 16 have been declared hostile whereas P.Ws. 9 and 18 have been declared to be tendered.
10. P.W.10-Jagdish Prasad Verma, has deposed that while he was in the shop situated by the side of Wakalatkhana of civil court, Daltonganj, he heard alarms at Kutchary More and found one man lying injured who was taken to the hospital on a rickshaw but in the cross- examination, he had not identified the person as to who had taken the injured on the rickshaw.
11. P.W. 13-Kaleshwar Singh (father of the deceased), who is hearsay witness, specifically deposed that he came to know about the occurrence from his son (P.W.14)-informant and thereafter he and his son went to the hospital and there he saw that his son-deceased was 6 admitted and blood was oozing from his head and the brain matter was coming out from the rear side but at about 3:00pm he succumbed to his injuries. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he went to the hospital but had not given any information to the police rather he gave information to the police after 3 to 4 days of the occurrence.
12. P.W.14-Uma Kant Singh (brother of the deceased), who claimed to be the eye witness, deposed that on 19.10.1980 at about 11:00am, deceased-Rajiv Ranjan Singh went to the local bus stand for purchasing ticket but he did not return. He went to the bus stand for searching his brother but did not find him and at about 12:45pm when his rickshaw reached near Kutchary more, he found that two jeeps were standing, one facing north and another facing east. In between two jeeps he saw accused-Jaipal Ram, Shailendra Singh, Kamal Nayan Singh and Sanjay Sahay assaulting his brother-Rajiv Ranjan Singh. At the same place, accused-Alok Kumar Verma @ Bholi was sitting at the steering of the jeep facing north and accused-Kiran Kumar Singh along with about 4 to 5 unknown young men was also standing near the jeep. Accused-Jai Pal Ram was armed with 'garasa' whereas accused-Sanjay Sahay with 'bhujali' and accused-Kamal Nayan Singh was with 'iron rod'. When the informant saw his brother being assaulted by accused-Jai Pal Ram, Shailendra Singh, Kamal Nayan Singh and Sanjay Sahay, he raised alarm to rescue his brother and then the accused persons rushed towards him for assaulting but he fled away. When Sudhir Kumar Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, Ramendra Kumar Singh and Sanjay Kumar Sinha arrived there, the accused persons fled away. Accused-Kamal Nayan Singh drove away jeep facing east in the same direction and accused- Alok Kumar Verma @ Bholi drove away the other jeep towards Kutchary. He further deposed that when he reached home and narrated the incident to his father, both of them rushed to the place of occurrence where they were told that the deceased was taken to Sadar Hospital and 7 then immediately he went to the hospital with his father and found his brother-Rajiv Ranjan Singh (deceased) admitted and blood was oozing from his head and the brain matter was coming out from the rear side and his brother-Rajiv Ranjan Singh succumbed to his injuries at about 3:00pm on the same day. He further deposed that his brother (deceased) has a house at Ranchi where he used to live. In the said mohalla, Sashi Barnwas had also been living with a woman of bad character. When his brother (deceased) forbade Shashi Barnwas not to live with that woman, he said the same to his friends-respondents. He has further deposed in his deposition that one day before the occurrence, when his brother (deceased) had gone to Ranchi to see Durga Puja, in the way all the accused persons threatened him of dire consequences. In the cross- examination, he said that when he reached at the place of occurrence, he saw all the accused persons assaulting his brother (deceased) indiscriminately with deadly weapons i.e. 'garasa and farsa' etc. but the assault was made mainly with 'garasa'. When he went to his house, Sudhir, Sanjay, Ramendra Ashok etc. were still there but as soon as he returned back they were not seen either in the place of occurrence or in the hospital.
13. P.W. 15-Binod Kumar, A.S.I. of Daltonganj Sadar police station, who proved Sanha No. 563 written by Munshi-Awdesh Kumar, (Ext.2), deposed that when he received information that a man was injured in Kutchery more, he along with other police officials went there and found that the injured was taken to the hospital. Thereafter he sent P.W.17-Ram Rup Roy to the hospital for recording the statement/fardbeyan. He further deposed that he met the owner of the jeep who told that the jeep is lying in the garage and hence he went to the garage where the mechanic had not told as to from which date the jeep is lying there. He further met with one Rajendra Prasad but he denied the ownership of the said jeep.
8
14. P.W.17-Ram Rup Roy, is the Investigating Officer, who deposed that he visited the place of occurrence where he saw plenty of blood. He further went to the hospital and took the statement of the informant-Uma Kant Singh. He found a ticket in the pocket of the deceased which was for journey from Daltonganj to Patna. He prepared inquest report (Ext.4). He also prepared seizure list of blood stained soil (Ext.5). He also deposed that he had taken the statement of Ashok Kumar Singh who was coming on rickshaw on 19.10.1980.
15. P.W.19-Dr. Ashok Kumar Sinha is the medical officer who upon holding autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased found the following ante mortem injuries:-
i. Incised wound 4" x 1½" x 1" on the left side of forehead extending on the upper part of the cheek.
ii. Incised wound 4" x 1¼" x ¾" on the left temporal region of the head.
iii. Incised wound 4" x ¾ x 1" on the left occipital region of the head. The underlying occipital bone was found cut and brain matter was found draining out.
iv Incised wound 4" x 1" x 1" on left occipital region of the head ½" below the injury no. (iii) just above the neck cutting the underlying bone, and brain matter draining out from the wound.
v. The whole of the left upper eyelid was bruised.
On dissection of the skull, the subcutaneous tissues around the wound were full of eccyhymosis. The bones underlying injury nos. (iii) and (iv) were found clearly cut through and through.
On opening the skull, the dura matter was found torn and the underlying brain matter of the occipital lobe was found lacerated.
The doctor issued postmortem examination report (Ext.7) with an opinion that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in natural course and time elapsed since death was within 2 hours. Injuries could be caused by 'bhujali' and 'chhura'. In cross-examination the doctor admitted that he did not find any injury on the hand.
16. P.W.20- Shri D. Hansda is the Railway Magistrate, who 9 recorded the statement of one Ranwari Ram under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and proved his signature (Ext.8).
17. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and also perused the materials available on record. It appears that the doctor- P.W.19, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased, has opined that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage.
18. On scanning the evidences of prosecution witnesses, it is crystal clear that there was delay in lodging the FIR and the delay was not explained properly, inasmuch as from the evidences, it is crystal clear that the police station was nearby the place of occurrence and though the informant and his father were going to the hospital through the police station but they did not inform the police. According to P.W.14, though P.Ws. 1 to 7 were the witnesses to the occurrence but they were declared hostile. P.W. 14, who claimed to have seen the occurrence but his evidence has been discarded by the trial court.
19. This Court has scrutinized the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses and found that there is sufficient material in not interfering with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
20. In this regard, we may refer to a case rendered in the case of Harijana Thirupala and others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad {(2002) 6 SCC 470}, wherein in paragraph-12 it has been held as under:-
"12. Doubtless the High Court in appeal either against an order of acquittal or conviction as a court of first appeal has full power to review the evidence to reach its own independent conclusion. However, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal lightly or merely because one other view is possible, because with the passing of an order of acquittal presumption of innocence in 10 favour of the accused gets reinforced and strengthened. The High Court would not be justified to interfere with the order of acquittal merely because it feels that sitting as a trial court it would have proceeded to record a conviction; a duty is cast on the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to examine and discuss the reasons given by the trial court to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons. If the High Court fails to make such an exercise the judgment will suffer from serious infirmity".
21. Thus, this Court finds that the prosecution has been able to establish the circumstances as mentioned above which only point towards the innocence of the respondents and thereby the trial court was absolutely justified in acquitting the respondents from the charges.
22. Accordingly, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them.
23. Consequently, both, Government Appeal and Criminal Revision, stand dismissed.
(Pradip Kumar Mohanty, ACJ) (Ananda Sen, J) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi The 12th January, 2017 AKT/NAFR