Jharkhand High Court
State Of Jharkhand vs Varun Das And Ors on 27 November, 2017
Author: H.C. Mishra
Bench: H.C.Mishra, A.K.Choudhary
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 20 of 2016
With
I.A. Nos. 4324 of 2016 & 4325 of 2016
-------
State of Jharkhand
through Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad .....Appellant
-Versus-
01. Barun Kumar Das
02. Arun Das
03. Ajay Das
04. Saroj Das
05. Panchu Das
06. Bhagirath Das
07. Mahesh Das
08. Santosh Das
09. Haradhan Das
10. Rajendra Das @ Raju Das
11. Naresh Das .... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHOUDHARY
-------
For the Appellant : M/s. Ravi Kumar Singh
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
-------
7/ 27.11.2017. Heard learned counsel for the appellant State and learned counsel for the accused respondents.
2. The appellant State is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 24.3.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad, in S.T No. 320 of 1999, whereby the accused respondents Nos. 1 to 11 who were facing trial for the offence under Sections 148, 302 / 149 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, were acquitted, giving them the benefits of doubt. The other eight accused persons facing the trial along with these respondents, however, were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court.
3. Against the Judgment of acquittal of the accused respondents, the present appeal has been filed by the State after the delay of 385 days, for condonation of which, I.A No.4324 of 2016 has been filed, mainly on the ground that the delay was caused due to the procedural delay in obtaining permission of the concerned authorities, for filing the acquittal appeal. Another I.A No.4325 of 2016 has been filed for granting leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal of the accused respondents.
4. The impugned Judgment shows that the case was instituted on the fardbeyan of the informant, Chhabi Devi, who is the wife of the 2 deceased, wherein it is stated that on 8.6.1996 at about 5:30 P.M, several boys were playing cricket in front of her house. They were talking in vulgar terms, which was objected by her husband, upon which, one of the boys became furious and abused her husband and caught his color, and the respondent Barun Das, Bhagirath Das and Naresh Das came there and assaulted her husband with fists and slaps and when she and her daughter tried to save him, they were also assaulted by them. Upon raising the alarm, local people came there and the accused persons fled away, giving the threat to her husband of dire consequences. Her husband went to the Police Station for reporting the matter and it is alleged that at about 7-8 P.M, all the named accused persons, including these private respondents, and other persons assembled near the house of the informant, abusing them and knocking the door for killing the husband. At about 10:00 P.M., her husband returned from the Police Station when the door was opened, it is alleged that all the named about 25 accused persons, assaulted the husband of the informant, causing his death. Some specific allegations of assault upon the deceased have also been made against other co-accused persons. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the police case was instituted and after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against 11 accused persons, showing one of them to be absconder. Charge-sheet was not submitted against these respondents. Learned C.J.M., however, took cognizance against 25 accused persons, including the respondents, and the case was committed to the Court of Session.
5. The impugned Judgment shows that the witnesses examined in the case, particularly the wife, son and the daughter of the deceased, who were examined as P.Ws 1 to 3, have fully supported the prosecution case, implicating the accused respondents also. The I.O of the case Chandra Bhushan Singh was examined as P.W.10, whose evidence showed that for the occurrence that had taken place at about 5:30 P.M on the same day, a police case was instituted by the deceased himself, which was Dhanbad P.S Case No. 392 of 1996 for the offences under Sections 323, 341 & 504 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has also come in the evidence of the I.O., that he along-with ASI J.S. Sharma and armed force proceeded towards the place of occurrence to keep vigil upon the crowd and had detained these accused respondents and brought them to the Police Station on 8.6.1996 at about 9:00 P.M., and 3 they were released only on 9.6.1996 at about 6:00 P.M. P.Ws 6,7,8 & 9, have also stated in their cross-examination that at the time of the occurrence of murder, these private respondents were already in police custody.
6. Taking into consideration evidence of these witnesses on record, the Court below has found the presence of the private respondents at the place of occurrence at the time of commission of the murder of the deceased, which was at about 10:00 P.M., to be improbable, as they were in the custody at the Police Station, and they were given the benefits of doubt and accordingly, acquitted. The other accused persons, facing the trial, were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below.
7. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the accused respondents have been illegally acquitted by the Court below, in spite of the evidence of the eyewitnesses who have named these respondents also, only on the ground of alibi.
8. Learned counsel for the accused respondents on the other hand, has submitted that the presence of these respondents was not at all possible at the place of occurrence, in view of the statement of the I.O, P.W.10 Chandra Bhushan Singh that they were detained by the police in the Police Station on 8.6.1996 at about 9:00 P.M and they were released only on the next day at about 6:00 P.M. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment giving the respondents the benefits of doubt and acquitting them of the charge.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the impugned Judgment, we find that it was not on the basis of the alibi of the accused respondents, that they were acquitted by the Trial Court, rather it was on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution itself, and particularly, the evidence of the I.O, P.W.10. Chandra Bhushan Singh, as well as P.Ws 6,7,8 & 9, who have specifically stated that at the time of the alleged occurrence, these private respondents were already in police custody. The evidence of the I.O, P.W.10, clearly shows that the deceased himself had lodged the case against these respondents and others on 8.6.1996, which was registered as Dhanbad P.S Case No. 392 of 1996, and in connection of the said case the I.O. had detained these respondents and brought them to the Police Station on 8.6.1996 itself at about 9:00 P.M and they were released only on the next day at about 6:00 P.M. 4
10. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that as the occurrence of murder of the deceased had taken place at about 10:00 P.M, as per the FIR, the benefits of doubt has rightly been given to the accused respondents, acquitting them of the charge, as the evidence on record showed that at the time of the occurrence, these respondents were in the police custody. We do not see any illegality in the impugned Judgment, worth interference by this Court.
11. Since we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment, there is no question of granting leave to appeal, against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. We also do not see any valid reason for condoning the delay of 385 days in filing the appeal, only on the ground of procedural latches. Accordingly, both the interlocutory applications stand dismissed.
12. Consequently, the present acquittal appeal also stands dismissed, being hopelessly barred by limitation, and also bereft of any merit.
(H.C. Mishra, J.) (A.K. Choudhary, J.) D.S./B.S.