Amar Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/50229
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnApr-09-2015
AppellantAmar Lal
RespondentState of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
1 in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi criminal appeal (d.b.) no. 13 of 2004 ---- against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2003 passed by additional sessions judge, fast track court-ii, bermo at tenughat in sessions trial no.244/2002/175/2002. ----- amar lal, son of ghanshyam, resident of sigra, p.s.malkhorada, distt. jangir chapa(mp), a/p: r/o ambedkar colony, q.no.m.q160p.s bermo, distt. bokaro -- appellant versus the state of jharkhand --- respondent ------ present hon’ble mr. justice virender singh, chief justice hon'ble mr. justice p.p.bhatt ------ for the petitioner/appellant : mr.nishant kumar roy for the respondent-state: : mr. shekhar sinha, a.p.p. ------ per virender singh,c.j.(oral) since appellant, amar lal, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'accused') is languishing in jail for the last 13 years being in custody from the date of his initial arrest, preference has been given to the instant appeal for its final consideration. he has suffered conviction for the charge of section 302 i.p.c and 201 i.p.c for allegedly committing murder of one ganga rabidas, father of pw dhaneshwar ram, the first informant. the sentence imposed upon him is life imprisonment under section 302 ipc and 7 years under section 201 ipc. both sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. the case of the prosecution primarily hinges upon circumstantial evidence as the three eye-witnesses to the occurrence, namely, pws ketki kumari, jaswa kamin and urmila kumari, have been declared hostile. the occurrence had 2 allegedly taken place in front of the house of pw jaswa kamin with whom the deceased was staying after he lost his wife as is projected in the first information report. pws ketki kumari and urmila kumari are daughters of jaswa kamin. weapon of offence is also shown to have been recovered near the place of occurrence, but is not pursuant to the disclosure statement suffered by the accused. prosecution has also made an attempt to prove the charge against the accused on the basis of extra judicial confession from the statements of pws tejo rabidas, baldeo lohar, dhaneshwar rabidas (brother-in-law of the deceased) and dhaneshwar ram, the first informant. these are the main planks available with the prosecution to establish its case against the accused.3. mr. roy, learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case to the hilt from any angle whatsoever, the eye version account falling on the ground on account of the aforesaid three so called eye-witnesses, namely, pws ketki kumari, jaswa kamin and urmila kumari, not supporting the case of the prosecution; the extra judicial confession turning out to be very weak character and the alleged recovery of knife being of very doubtful character.4. while strengthening his arguments, mr.roy submitted that if one looks at the fir, the time of lodging of fir is shown at 10.30 am and perusal of the first-column of inquest report prepared by the investigating officer indicates the time as 8.00 a.m. learned counsel submitted that even the number of fir is also mentioned and and this indicates that the police had actually visited the spot, first prepared certain documents and then registered the f.i.r. according to learned counsel, not only that, if one looks at the time of alleged recovery of knife, it is indicated as 8.45 a.m, i.e. much prior to lodging of formal fir and all these flaws turn out to be fatal to the prosecution. 3 5. learned counsel vehemently contended that not only aforesaid weaknesses make the prosecution case inherently weak, the other vital flaw which is staring at the prosecution, is a crude padding done by the prosecution agency projecting its case on extra judicial confession allegedly made by accused before the pws tejo rabidas, baldeo lohar, dhaneshwar rabidas and dhaneshwar ram, the first informant, but the said extra judicial confession also turns out to be of very weak character, when seen in the light of the statement made by the accused before the police on the date of occurrence itself, which is available on page 25 of the trial court record (in original). learned counsel submitted that it is otherwise hit by section 25 of the indian evidence act, as such not admissible. learned counsel then submitted that the extra judicial confession is otherwise shown to have been made by the accused in presence of hundreds of villagers assembled there and even before the police which had also arrived at the scene and the same confession is again recorded by the police in the police station on the same day bearing signatures of the accused. all this creates lot of doubt about the truthfulness of this plank of evidence.6. learned counsel lastly submitted that the alleged recovery of knife not only loses its effect on account of the flaw pointed out with regard to the timing shown of the recovery of the knife, even otherwise, it is not proved to have been recovered from the accused as it was lying near the place of occurrence. learned counsel submitted that the said knife was never shown to the doctor who conducted autopsy on the deadbody of the deceased, when stepped into the witness box, therefore it cannot be said to be a weapon of offence.7. on the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the 4 accused to the hilt, therefore he deserves to be acquitted of the charge of section 302 i.p.c.8. not only mr.sinha, learned app, finds himself on a slippery footing, we after rescanning the entire evidence once again in its right perspective are also of the view that the prosecution has not been able to bring the charge home to the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. we have tested the present case on the settled principles of appreciating a case resting upon circumstantial evidence.9. no doubt, motive does play an important role in the case of circumstantial evidence but motive alone, by itself, even if proved, cannot be said to be sufficient for holding the conviction. with regard to motive, the evidence available on record, as one finds from the statement of pw dhaneshwar ram, the first informant, is that the accused wanted to develop illicit relationship with pw jaswa kamin and the deceased was objecting to it and for this reason, he has been killed by the accused. although pw jaswa kamin has not supported the case of the prosecution vis-a-vis motive part and we believe the statement of pw dhaneshwar ram to that effect, still we do not find any corroborative piece of evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offence as all other vital planks of circumstantial evidence are stumbling badly.10. as stated above, prosecution was initially banking upon the evidence of pw jaswa kamin and her two daughters who had alleged seen the accused assaulting the deceased in front of their house but none of them has supported the case set up by the prosecution before the learned trial court. the site of occurrence shown is in front of the house of pw jaswa kamin and that the recovery of knife is also shown nearby but all this, by itself, cannot be said to be conclusive piece of evidence hinting towards involvement of the accused in the commission of offence. 5 11. the prosecution also made an attempt to prove its case on the strength of extra judicial confession made by the accused before certain witnesses but that also turns out to be of inherently weak character when seen in the light of the statement allegedly made by the accused before the police on the date of occurrence itself, which the prosecution wanted to project as confessional statement of the accused but hit by section 25 of the indian evidence act, therefore cannot be read into evidence. not only that extra judicial confession is shown to have been made by the accused in presence of many villagers and then in presence of police as the police had also arrived at the scene when the accused was nabbed by villagers. in this factual backdrop, the extra judicial confession does not turn out to be a convincing plank of evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused.12. what is more disturbing in this case is that police reached the place of occurrence before lodging of fir as one finds from the time shown in the inquest report and in the recovery memo, whereby knife is shown to have been taken into possession. one can make out that all these formalities have been done prior to lodging of fir. not only that, in the first column of the inquest report, even the number of fir has been mentioned. the matter does not rest here. perusal of the confessional statement of the accused made before the police, which is otherwise held to be inadmissible, there is over-writing of the timing. it is shown as 10.40 a.m and if one looks at the timing with a magnifying glass, it is much prior to 10.40 a.m. this can be said to be a crude padding by the prosecution agency. viewed thus, the investigation conducted in this case appears to be of shoddy character. even the recovery of knife is also of no relevance in this case.13. all the aforesaid flaws, when taken collectively, one can comfortably arrive at a conclusion that the case of the prosecution is shrouded under thick 6 clouds of doubt, therefore it would not be safe to hold conviction of the accused for such a grave charge of section 302 ipc, as all the vital planks of circumstantial evidence on which the prosecution is banking heavily are not proved to the hilt individually or collectively. he, thus, deserves to be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.14. perhaps no other material aspect of the prosecution has been left over by us unexamined.15. the net result is that the appeal on hand stands allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction/sentence handed down by the learned trial court is set aside. the accused is acquitted of the charge of section 302 ipc. he is stated to be in custody for the last about 13 years and shall now be released forthwith in this case, if not required in any other case.16. registry is directed to convey the order to the jail authority concerned without any delay.17. learned trial court shall also be apprised of the outcome of the instant appeal. lower court records (in original) be remitted to the court below. (virender singh, c.j.) (p.p.bhatt, j.) jharkhand high court, ranchi the 9th april, 2015 nafr/dey
Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 13 of 2004 ---- Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No.244/2002/175/2002. ----- Amar Lal, son of Ghanshyam, resident of Sigra, P.S.Malkhorada, Distt. Jangir Chapa(MP), A/P: r/o Ambedkar Colony, Q.No.M.Q160P.S Bermo, Distt. Bokaro -- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand --- Respondent ------ PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT ------ For the Petitioner/Appellant : Mr.Nishant Kumar Roy For the Respondent-State: : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P. ------ Per Virender Singh,C.J.(Oral) Since appellant, Amar Lal, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Accused') is languishing in jail for the last 13 years being in custody from the date of his initial arrest, preference has been given to the instant appeal for its final consideration. He has suffered conviction for the charge of section 302 I.P.C and 201 I.P.C for allegedly committing murder of one Ganga Rabidas, father of PW Dhaneshwar Ram, the first informant. The sentence imposed upon him is life imprisonment under section 302 IPC and 7 years under section 201 IPC. Both sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution primarily hinges upon circumstantial evidence as the three eye-witnesses to the occurrence, namely, Pws Ketki Kumari, Jaswa Kamin and Urmila Kumari, have been declared hostile. The occurrence had 2 allegedly taken place in front of the house of PW Jaswa Kamin with whom the deceased was staying after he lost his wife as is projected in the First Information Report. Pws Ketki Kumari and Urmila Kumari are daughters of Jaswa Kamin. Weapon of offence is also shown to have been recovered near the place of occurrence, but is not pursuant to the disclosure statement suffered by the accused. Prosecution has also made an attempt to prove the charge against the accused on the basis of extra judicial confession from the statements of Pws Tejo Rabidas, Baldeo Lohar, Dhaneshwar Rabidas (brother-in-law of the deceased) and Dhaneshwar Ram, the first informant. These are the main planks available with the prosecution to establish its case against the accused.

3. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case to the hilt from any angle whatsoever, the eye version account falling on the ground on account of the aforesaid three so called eye-witnesses, namely, Pws Ketki Kumari, Jaswa Kamin and Urmila Kumari, not supporting the case of the prosecution; the extra judicial confession turning out to be very weak character and the alleged recovery of knife being of very doubtful character.

4. While strengthening his arguments, Mr.Roy submitted that if one looks at the FIR, the time of lodging of FIR is shown at 10.30 am and perusal of the first-column of inquest report prepared by the Investigating Officer indicates the time as 8.00 a.m. Learned counsel submitted that even the number of FIR is also mentioned and and this indicates that the police had actually visited the spot, first prepared certain documents and then registered the F.I.R. According to learned counsel, not only that, if one looks at the time of alleged recovery of knife, it is indicated as 8.45 a.m, i.e. much prior to lodging of formal FIR and all these flaws turn out to be fatal to the prosecution. 3 5. Learned counsel vehemently contended that not only aforesaid weaknesses make the prosecution case inherently weak, the other vital flaw which is staring at the prosecution, is a crude padding done by the prosecution agency projecting its case on extra judicial confession allegedly made by accused before the Pws Tejo Rabidas, Baldeo Lohar, Dhaneshwar Rabidas and Dhaneshwar Ram, the first informant, but the said extra judicial confession also turns out to be of very weak character, when seen in the light of the statement made by the accused before the police on the date of occurrence itself, which is available on page 25 of the trial court record (in original). Learned counsel submitted that it is otherwise hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, as such not admissible. Learned counsel then submitted that the extra judicial confession is otherwise shown to have been made by the accused in presence of hundreds of villagers assembled there and even before the police which had also arrived at the scene and the same confession is again recorded by the police in the police station on the same day bearing signatures of the accused. All this creates lot of doubt about the truthfulness of this plank of evidence.

6. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the alleged recovery of knife not only loses its effect on account of the flaw pointed out with regard to the timing shown of the recovery of the knife, even otherwise, it is not proved to have been recovered from the accused as it was lying near the place of occurrence. Learned counsel submitted that the said knife was never shown to the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the deadbody of the deceased, when stepped into the witness box, therefore it cannot be said to be a weapon of offence.

7. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the 4 accused to the hilt, therefore he deserves to be acquitted of the charge of section 302 I.P.C.

8. Not only Mr.Sinha, learned APP, finds himself on a slippery footing, we after rescanning the entire evidence once again in its right perspective are also of the view that the prosecution has not been able to bring the charge home to the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. We have tested the present case on the settled principles of appreciating a case resting upon circumstantial evidence.

9. No doubt, motive does play an important role in the case of circumstantial evidence but motive alone, by itself, even if proved, cannot be said to be sufficient for holding the conviction. With regard to motive, the evidence available on record, as one finds from the statement of PW Dhaneshwar Ram, the first informant, is that the accused wanted to develop illicit relationship with PW Jaswa Kamin and the deceased was objecting to it and for this reason, he has been killed by the accused. Although PW Jaswa Kamin has not supported the case of the prosecution vis-a-vis motive part and we believe the statement of PW Dhaneshwar Ram to that effect, still we do not find any corroborative piece of evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offence as all other vital planks of circumstantial evidence are stumbling badly.

10. As stated above, prosecution was initially banking upon the evidence of PW Jaswa Kamin and her two daughters who had alleged seen the accused assaulting the deceased in front of their house but none of them has supported the case set up by the prosecution before the learned trial court. The site of occurrence shown is in front of the house of PW Jaswa Kamin and that the recovery of knife is also shown nearby but all this, by itself, cannot be said to be conclusive piece of evidence hinting towards involvement of the accused in the commission of offence. 5 11. The prosecution also made an attempt to prove its case on the strength of extra judicial confession made by the accused before certain witnesses but that also turns out to be of inherently weak character when seen in the light of the statement allegedly made by the accused before the police on the date of occurrence itself, which the prosecution wanted to project as confessional statement of the accused but hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, therefore cannot be read into evidence. Not only that extra judicial confession is shown to have been made by the accused in presence of many villagers and then in presence of police as the police had also arrived at the scene when the accused was nabbed by villagers. In this factual backdrop, the extra judicial confession does not turn out to be a convincing plank of evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

12. What is more disturbing in this case is that police reached the place of occurrence before lodging of FIR as one finds from the time shown in the inquest report and in the recovery memo, whereby knife is shown to have been taken into possession. One can make out that all these formalities have been done prior to lodging of FIR. Not only that, in the first column of the inquest report, even the number of FIR has been mentioned. The matter does not rest here. Perusal of the confessional statement of the accused made before the police, which is otherwise held to be inadmissible, there is over-writing of the timing. It is shown as 10.40 a.m and if one looks at the timing with a magnifying glass, it is much prior to 10.40 a.m. This can be said to be a crude padding by the prosecution agency. Viewed thus, the investigation conducted in this case appears to be of shoddy character. Even the recovery of knife is also of no relevance in this case.

13. All the aforesaid flaws, when taken collectively, one can comfortably arrive at a conclusion that the case of the prosecution is shrouded under thick 6 clouds of doubt, therefore it would not be safe to hold conviction of the accused for such a grave charge of section 302 IPC, as all the vital planks of circumstantial evidence on which the prosecution is banking heavily are not proved to the hilt individually or collectively. He, thus, deserves to be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.

14. Perhaps no other material aspect of the prosecution has been left over by us unexamined.

15. The net result is that the appeal on hand stands allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction/sentence handed down by the learned trial court is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charge of section 302 IPC. He is stated to be in custody for the last about 13 years and shall now be released forthwith in this case, if not required in any other case.

16. Registry is directed to convey the order to the jail authority concerned without any delay.

17. Learned trial court shall also be apprised of the outcome of the instant appeal. Lower court records (in original) be remitted to the court below. (Virender Singh, C.J.) (P.P.Bhatt, J.) JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, RANCHI The 9th April, 2015 NAFR/dey