Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 995 (PAT)

Anil Singh And Another v. State Of Bihar

2000-08-14

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, N.PANDEY

body2000
Judgment Narbdeshwar Pandey, J. 1. Both the appellants have been convicted under Secs. 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under both the counts. The sentences are, however, to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that deceased Dhiran Singh had a talk with one Wokil Singh for purchase of one bigha of land for consideration money of Rs. 20,000.00 . On Sunday, i.e., 15.11.1992 in order to go to village Permanandpur for making payment of the balance dues of Rs. 9,000.00 he left his house in the mid-night to catch the train. When Dhiran Singh did not return to his house for some time, the informant sent the wife of the deceased appellant Jira Devi to village Permanandpur to find out why Dhiran Singh did not return. When appellant Jira Devi returned from village Permanandpur, it was disclosed that Dhiran Singh had returned from that village on Sunday (15.11.1992) itself. In the meantime, on 19.11.1992 at about 4 p.m. One Ram Bilash Yadav disclosed that a dead body was lying in Sirsiya Bahiyar. On getting this information, the informant and other villagers a lived at the place and saw Dhiran Singh lying dead. It was further discovered that there was a cut mark on the abdomen and the dead body was drowned by tying stone pieces. The informant suspected that while his son was going with money, he was killed and in order to conceal the evidence, the dead body was thrown into the water. On the basis of the above fardbeyan, the police registered a regular case and submitted charge-sheet against the abovementioned two appellants and others, namely, Surendra Singh and Ram Bilash Yadav, who were ultimately acquitted. 3. The defence of the accused-persons was total denial of the allegations. At the very outset, it may be mentioned that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence in this case and, therefore, the whole case is based on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, though there was no allegation against the appellants in the First Information Report but during investigation, it was discovered that appellant Jira Devi was in love with appellant Anil Kumar Singh, therefore, in order to get rid of Dhiran Singh, both the appellants in league of other accused-persons, committed the murder. 4. According to the prosecution, though there was no allegation against the appellants in the First Information Report but during investigation, it was discovered that appellant Jira Devi was in love with appellant Anil Kumar Singh, therefore, in order to get rid of Dhiran Singh, both the appellants in league of other accused-persons, committed the murder. 4. P.W. 1 Yogeshwar Singh in his evidence stated that love affairs of Jira Devi and appellant Anil Kumar Singh was not liked by deceased Dhiran Singh. He further alleged that when Jira Devi gave birth to a child, deceased Dhiran Singh suspecting that such a child was born through Anil Kumar Singh chided his wife and stopped her from going to the house of appellant Anil Kumar Singh by putting a tatti. But in spite of that, the lady used to visit the house of appellant Anil Kumar Singh. Similar is the statement of P.W. 4 Garib Singh about the love affairs of these appellants. P.W. 2 Indu Kumari is the daughter of the deceased. In her evidence, she has accepted that her mother Jira Devi had some quarrel with deceased Dhiran Singh on earlier occasion whereas P.W. 3 Mukesh Singh is the brother of the deceased and he also disclosed more or less similar story. 5. The trial Court as would appear from the judgment convicted the accused-persons on three circumstances, namely, that on 15.11.1992 Dhiran Singh had started from his house. In the midnight to catch the train for village Permanandpur to make payment of the balance dues of Rs. 9,000.00 to the vendor. The second circumstance that weighed to the learned Judge is that in that night itself appellant Jira Devi left her house and went to the house of appellant Anil Kumar Singh. Therefore, it was quite possible that due to previous ill-feeling with the deceased and love affairs with appellant Anil Kumar Singh both of them connived to commit murder of Dhiran Singh. The third circumstance is that according to the prosecution when the dead body of Dhiran Singh was recovered, appellant Jira Devi did not go to that place even to ascertain and similar was the position about appellant Anil Kumar Singh. Therefore, such an unnatural conduct of these appellants also raised doubt against them. 6. The third circumstance is that according to the prosecution when the dead body of Dhiran Singh was recovered, appellant Jira Devi did not go to that place even to ascertain and similar was the position about appellant Anil Kumar Singh. Therefore, such an unnatural conduct of these appellants also raised doubt against them. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended since the conviction of these appellants is based purely on circumstantial evidence, the Court should see whether taking totality of the circumstances which are said to have been proved, it can be said that the case is established against the accused. In support of the contention, learned Counsel also placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court in the case of Ragha v Prapanna Tripathi and Ors. V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh -- . Reliance was also made to another decision of the apex Court in the case of Padala Veera Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh -- whereby the above view was reiterated. 7. He further contended that from a bare reference to the First Information Report, it would appear that the deceased Dhiran Singh had left the house on Sunday, 15.11.1992, night. No intimation was to the Police for about 4-5 days. The informant had also sent appellant Jira Devi, wife of the deceased to village Permanandpur to enquire as to why Dhiran Singh did not return but there was no trace. Ultimately on Thursday, 19.11.1992, on the dead body of Dhiran Singh, the fardbeyan in question was recorded. But, no allegation whatsoever was raised raized against these accused-persons nor even there was any allegation that these appellants were in love with each other. Therefore, to get rid of Dhiran Singh, they had conspired and committed the murder. The story of love affairs between these two appellants or they had conspired to commit murder of the deceased appears purely concocted and after-thought. Therefore, such discrepancy in the case of the prosecution and story as narrated in the First Information Report is sufficient to hold that the circumstances relied upon by the trial Court to hold the accused-persons guilty was, in fact, unfounded and baseless. 8. He next contended that apart from what has been stated above, there is no other material to connect the accused-persons with the alleged murder save and except that they were in love with each other. 8. He next contended that apart from what has been stated above, there is no other material to connect the accused-persons with the alleged murder save and except that they were in love with each other. In fact, such a story was subsequently cooked up by the prosecution. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the apex Court any strong suspicion cannot take place of a legal proof of murder against the accused unless and until a decisive conclusion establishes that it was these appellants alone who had committed the murder beyond all reasonable doubts. 9. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that from a bare reference to the evidence of P.W. 4 Garib Singh, it would appear that appellant Anil Kumar Singh had previously enquired from the family members of the informant as to when deceased Dhiran Singh would go to village Permanandpur to deposit balance dues. This witness has also said about other circumstances that after the recovery of the dead body appellant Anil Kumar Singh asked the villagers not to disclose such recovery failing which every body would be implicated. Thus, he made almost attempt that no intimation should be given to the police in order to suppress the death of Dhiran Singh. Hence, the totality of the above circumstances go to prove that it was these appellants who are alone responsible for the murder of Dhiran Singh and noneless. 10. In the background of the submissions of the learned Advocates as noticed above and the materials available on record, there is no manner of doubt that death of Dhiran Singh was homicidal and there was positive attempt by the murderers to conceal the dead body by drowning after tying stone pieces with the body. This is also admitted that there is no eye-witness in this case whatsoever to make an allegation as to which of the accused committed the murder and in what manner not there is any disclosure about the time and place of occurrence. The trial Court, therefore, taking help of certain circumstances convicted the accused-persons. 11. The first circumstance which has been heavily relied upon by the trial Court is that these appellants were in love with each other and since it was not liked by deceased Dhiran Singh, they conspired together to commit his murder. The trial Court, therefore, taking help of certain circumstances convicted the accused-persons. 11. The first circumstance which has been heavily relied upon by the trial Court is that these appellants were in love with each other and since it was not liked by deceased Dhiran Singh, they conspired together to commit his murder. This has also been stated by the prosecution witnesses that appellant No. 2 Jira Devi had three issues but there was a doubt about the third one in the mind of deceased Dhiran Singh that such issue was through appellant Anil Kumar Singh. This part of the story has not been supported by P.W. 2 who is noneless but the daughter of the deceased nor there is such allegation in the First Information Report by the informant who is the father of the deceased. 12. So far as appellant Anil Kumar Singh is concerned, there is no doubt as would appear from the evidence of P.W. 4 that he had definite information from the family members that Dhiran Singh was going to the railway station on Sunday night 15.11.1992 to catch train for Permanandpur. His other conduct as narrated by P.Ws 2 and 4 that after recovery of the dead body he made all possible efforts to suppress the murder of Dhira Singh has also been considered as one of the circumstances that he was instrumental in the murder of Dhiran Singh. The trial Court has also noticed that appellant Anil Kumar Singh was an unmarried young man and he always used to go to the house of Dhiran Singh to influence Jira Devi to go to his house. But, this conduct of the appellant was always disliked by Dhiran Singh and, therefore, they were keeping strained relationship. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly considered that all such circumstances are sufficient to hold him guilty. 13. But, on these circumstances certainly conviction of appellant Jira Devi cannot sustain because from a bare reference to the First Information Report it would appear that no allegation whatsoever was made by the father of the deceased. Rather according to him, the lady had gone to village Permanandpur to enquire about her husband and after getting information that he had returned on that very day, she came back to the village and narrated all these facts before, the informant. Rather according to him, the lady had gone to village Permanandpur to enquire about her husband and after getting information that he had returned on that very day, she came back to the village and narrated all these facts before, the informant. It would further appear that although deceased Dhiran Singh had left the house on Sunday 15.11.1992 and fardbeyan was recorded on 19.11.1992, i.e.; nearly five days after the date of occurrence but nothing was alleged against this appellant. If the father of the deceased had any doubt against her he could not have asked this appellant to go to village Permanandpur to find the whereabouts of the deceased. 14. That apart, the only allegation whatsoever that has come during trial is that she was in love appellant Anil Kumar Singh, therefore, she had asked her husband to go to the railway station in the mid night. In my view, it would appear from the case of the prosecution itself that in order to go to the railway station, in fact Dhiran Singh was required to go on foot in the night since there was no other means. Therefore, having regard to the distance of the railway station and the timing of train, there cannot be scope to doubt why Dhiran Singh was requested by the lady to go in midnight to the railway station. 15. Apart from writ has been noticed above, although the daughter of the deceased has been examined before the Court but no allegation whatsoever was made save and except that her father ad mother used to quarrel some times. The other witnesses examined in this case are also family members and not strangers. According to the informant, Dhiran Singh had left the village on 15.11.1992 and the First Information Report was lodged on 19.11.1992. For five days, no body had disclosed to the informant regarding any love story or that appellant Jira Devi had gone to the house of appellant Anil Kumar Singh in the night after her husband had left for the railway station. This part of the conduct of the prosecution certainly raises a doubt whether appellant Jira Devi had conspired with appellant Anil Kumar Singh to commit the murder of her husband. Therefore, as a result of the facts discussed above, in my view, appellant Jira Devi is entitled to a benefit of doubt. This part of the conduct of the prosecution certainly raises a doubt whether appellant Jira Devi had conspired with appellant Anil Kumar Singh to commit the murder of her husband. Therefore, as a result of the facts discussed above, in my view, appellant Jira Devi is entitled to a benefit of doubt. Because unless and until there is very strong circumstance to connect the chain of events, it would not be safe to convict this appellant. 16. In the result, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against appellant No. 2 Jira Devi is set aside and she is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. But, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court aquarist appellant No. 1 Anil Kumar Singh are confirmed. With the above modification in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, with respect to appellant No. 2 Jira Devi, this appeal is dismissed.