Jharkhand High Court
Ranjay Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 22 November, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 JHA 527, 2019 (1) AJR 858, (2019) 1 JLJR 101
Author: H.C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra, Ratnaker Bhengra
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 102 of 1996(R)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 102 of 1996 (R)
(Against the Judgement of conviction dated 18.04.1996 and Order of
sentence dated 20.04.1996, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Hazaribag, in S.T. No. 54 of 1992.)
Ranjay Kumar Mahto
@ Ranjay Mahto ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellant : M/s. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
For the State : M/s. Niki Sinha, A.P.P.
--------
By Court: - Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the State.
2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgement of conviction dated 18.04.1996 and Order of sentence dated 20.04.1996, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in S.T. No. 54 of 1992, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant, Santoshi Mahto, the father of the deceased boy, Shambhu @ Chhotu, aged about 4½ years, recorded on 27.9.1991 in C.C.L. colony. According to the fardbeyan, on the previous day, i.e., on 26.9.1991 at about 12:30 P.M, the son of the informant had gone to play with the children of the colony, but he did not return back. He was searched and when he could not be found, the missing report of the boy was given at the police outpost. On 27.9.1991 at about 8:00 A.M in the morning, one Kokan Bisai and Mahesh Kumar Yadav informed him that on the previous day, they Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 102 of 1996(R) -2- had seen the son of the informant going along with the accused Ranjay Mahto towards the dump. One lady, Malti Bhuiyani also informed the informant that she had also seen the accused taking away the son of the informant towards the forest. The informant has further stated that the accused was entering into the house of a girl in the colony, with ulterior motive, which his wife had objected, and the accused had threatened his wife. Alleging that due to the said enmity, the accused might have taken his boy towards the forest and committed his murder, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which, Mandu (Charhi) P.S. Case No. 285 of 1991, corresponding to G.R. No. 1789 of 1991, was instituted for the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. During investigation, the police recovered the dead body of the deceased child, and accordingly, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused.
4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial.
5. In course of trial, nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The I.O. has not been examined in the case. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-4 Mahesh Kumar Yadav and P.W.-6 Ashok Kumar Singh, were only tendered by the prosecution, whereas P.W.-3 R.L. Choudhary is the Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the statements of the witnesses, P.W.-1 Kokan Bisai, P.W.-2 Malti Bhuiyani and P.W.-4 Mahesh Kumar Yadav, under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., which he has proved, and the same were marked as Exhibits-1 to 1/2 respectively.
6. P.W.-8 Santoshi Mahto is the informant of the case and the father of the deceased. This witness had stated that his son, Shambhu @ Chhotu is dead and he had gone missing about three years ago. He was taken away by the accused Ranjan on the pretext of playing and thereafter, he was searched, but could not be found. The missing report was given in the Police Station also, and on the next day, he was informed by Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 102 of 1996(R) -3- Kokan Bisai and Malti Bhuiyani that they had seen the accused going with the deceased boy. Thereafter, he informed the police and his statement was recorded, on which he had put his thumb impression. He has further stated that the police apprehended the accused and upon interrogation, he disclosed that he could get the dead body recovered, and the accused himself took out dead body, which was covered with sand and leaves. He has identified the accused in the Court. This witness was also put to extensive cross-examination, but there is nothing of much importance in his cross-examination, except that he has stated that at the time when the dead body was taken out, about 500-1000 persons were present there.
7. P.W.-7 Kunti Devi is the mother of the deceased, and she has stated that the accused, Ranjay Kumar Mahto lives in the same locality whom she knew, and once he was entering in the house of one girl with ulterior motive, for which, she had scolded him, and he had threatened her. Her son Shambhu @ Chhotu was about four years old and he was taken away by the accused on the pretext of playing. When her son did not return back, he was searched and subsequently, they were informed by Rokan Bisai and Malti Bhuiyani that they had seen her son going with the accused. Thereafter, her husband informed the police. She has stated that the dead body was having cut injury in the neck and on the accused's pointing out, the dead body of her son with the cut neck injury was recovered. She has also identified the accused in the Court. There is nothing of much importance in her cross-examination as well.
8. P.W.-1 Kokan Bisai and P.W.-2 Malti Bhuiyani are only the witnesses to the fact that they had seen the accused going with the boy. Whereas, P.W.-5 Gopali Ganjhu is the witness to the fact that the accused himself took out the dead body of the deceased from the bushes and handed over to the police. There is nothing of much importance in their cross-examinations as well.
9. P.W.-9 Dr. Asrar Ahmad Faruque had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 28.9.1991, and had found the following injuries :-
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 102 of 1996(R) -4- Rigor Mortis was absent in upper limbs and slightly present in lower limbs. Mouth open. Both eyes protruded. Maggots present in the dead body.
The Injury-
Incised wound on the neck, left side up to bone cutting all the soft tissues of left side and partly right mid line. On dissection both chambers of heart were found empty. Lungs intact and pale, lever, spleen, kidney all intact and pale. Other visceras N.A.D. This witness has stated that the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock due to the above injuries and the time elapsed since death was about 48 hours. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the time elapsed since death could be between 36 hours to 72 hours, and the dead body was fully decomposed.
10. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the accused has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, as aforesaid.
11. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, in view of the fact that the I.O. has not been examined in the case, which has caused serious prejudice to the defence. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that due to the non-examination of the I.O, it could not be taken by the defence as to from where the dead body was recovered, and whether it was recovered on the basis of the confessional statement of the accused or not. Learned senior counsel further submitted that even the F.I.R. and the inquest report etc., have not been proved by the prosecution due to the non-examination of the I.O. Learned senior counsel accordingly, submitted that in the facts of this case, the appellant was entitled at least to the benefits of doubt.
12. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that it has come in the evidence of the witnesses that the appellant himself pointed out the dead body to the police, took it out from the bushes and handed over to the police. It is submitted that it has come in the evidence of the mother of the deceased, P.W.-7 Kunti Devi, Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 102 of 1996(R) -5- that the neck of the dead body was found to be cut, and the ocular evidence of this witness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-9 Dr. Asrar Ahmad Faruque, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-2. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that even though, the I.O. could not be examined in the case, but no prejudice has been caused to the defence due to the non-examination of the I.O., and the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
13. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that P.W.-1 Kokan Bisai and P.W.-2 Malti Bhuiyani have specifically stated that they had seen the deceased going with the accused. They have not stated that the accused was taking away the deceased, and probably for this reason, the accused through charged for the offence under Section 364 of the Cr.P.C., has not been found guilty for the same. P.W.-5 Gopali Ganjhu has stated that it was the accused himself, who had taken out the dead body of the deceased from the bushes and handed it over to the police. Though the I.O. has not been examined in the case, but in the interest of justice, we have looked into the case diary, and we found from it that the statement of this witness was recorded by the police, in which also, he had stated the same fact. P.W.-7 Kunti Devi and P.W.-8 Santoshi Mahto, the parents of the deceased, though have stated that the accused had taken away the deceased, but this fact is not there in the F.I.R. The informant was only informed by the witnesses on the next day that the deceased boy was seen going with the accused, and this fact has fully been proved by P.W.-1 Kokan Bisai and P.W.-2 Malti Bhuiyani. P.W.-7 Kunti Devi has stated that the dead body was recovered on pointing out by the accused, and P.W.-8 Santoshi Mahto has stated that the dead body was taken out by the accused himself in the presence of the police. P.W.-7 Kunti Devi has also stated that the neck of the dead body was found to be slit. The Medical evidence of P.W.-9 Dr. Asrar Ahmad Faruque shows that there was incised wound on the neck up to the bone, cutting all the soft tissues of the left side and partially the right mid line, which corroborates the evidence of P.W.-7 Kunti Devi, and this injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause the death. There is nothing in the evidence of these witnesses to show that Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 102 of 1996(R) -6- their attention was drawn towards any statement given by them before the police relating to the recovery of the dead body on the basis of the pointing out by this accused. As such it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the defence due to the non-examination of the I.O.
14. We are of the considered view, that on the basis of the evidence on record, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth any interference by this Court.
15. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgement of conviction dated 18.04.1996 and Order of sentence dated 20.04.1996, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in S.T. No. 54 of 1992, convicting and sentencing the appellant Ranjay Kumar Mahto @ Ranjay Mahto, for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which, we hereby, affirm. The appellant Ranjay Kumar Mahto @ Ranjay Mahto, is on bail. His bail is hereby, cancelled, and he is directed to surrender in the Trial Court below forthwith, for serving out the sentence. The Trial Court below is also directed to issue process forthwith, compelling the production / surrender of the appellant, for serving out the sentence.
16. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.
(H.C. Mishra, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated the 22nd of November, 2018.
NAFR D.S. /B.S-