Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 600 (JHR)

Kujri Jonko And Six Ors. v. State

2001-08-27

D.N.PRASAD, VINOD KUMAR GUPTA

body2001
ORDER 1. The order dated 16.2.2001 is recalled. The appeal is restored to its original position. 2. We are faced with a very piquant and strange predicament in this appeal. The appellant No. 2, Bagun Jonko is cited as accused No. 3 in the judgment of the learned trial Court. The suggestion is that Bagun Jonko actually died during the pendency of the trial itself. The further suggestion is that his son, Dongo Jonko, for some unexplained reasons, substituted himself for the father and started attending trial proceedings in his name and on conviction, is serving the sentence in his fathers name as his substitute and on his behalf. This is unknown to the criminal jurisprudence. In the annals of criminal jurisprudence, there is nothing called or known as a vicarious liability or a representative liability. A criminal is a criminal and he cannot pass on his responsibility to anyone also, including his son. If, therefore, the offence was committed by the father. Bagun Jonko, and if the son is serving the sentence, the son (Dongo Jonko) has to be released from the captivity immediately and forthwith. That alone is the demand and mandate of law. 3. In order to find out the truth, we direct the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, to detail and nominate a responsible officer either from CID or Intelligence Wing, in the rank of Dy. S.P. or above to hold investigation and enquiry into the entire matter and submit a report to us within two weeks from today. If this man (Dongo Jonko) is required to be identified by witnesses or co-villagers, he may be taken out of the jail by the said investigating/enquiry officer. We direct the police authorities, Jail authorities and presiding Officer of the trial Court (Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. S.T. No. 472/1989) to render every assistance and help to this investigating/enquiry Officer. 4. Let the names of the learned counsel for the parties appear in the cause list on the next date. 5. Let the matter appear after two weeks. Order dated 27.8.01 : 6. ,We refer to our orders dated 6.8.2001 and 23.8.2001. We have perused the reports of the DIG and Dy. SP Dongo Jonko. the real person, pursuant to our order dated 23.8.2001 is present before us in person today. He has been produced in the Court pursuant to the aforesaid order. Order dated 27.8.01 : 6. ,We refer to our orders dated 6.8.2001 and 23.8.2001. We have perused the reports of the DIG and Dy. SP Dongo Jonko. the real person, pursuant to our order dated 23.8.2001 is present before us in person today. He has been produced in the Court pursuant to the aforesaid order. Dongo Jonko is not the person who was the accused in the trial or who was the appellant in the appeal before us. The appeal has been filed by Bagun Jonko, who now turns out to be the father of Dongo Jonko and as per the aforesaid two reports, Bagun Jonko died even during the trial of the case. What effect all these developments Will have on the appeal will be decided later, but for the present, we are satisfied that the circumstances warrant that Dongo Jonko be released from the captivity immediately and forthwith. 7. We accordingly direct that Dongo Jonko shall be released from the captivity today itself on his furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the Joint. Registrar (Judl.) of this Court that if ever his presence is required, he (Dongo Jonko) shall appear in this Court. Dongo Jonko. who is under escort, is accordingly to be taken to the Joint Registrar (Judl.) of this Court, who shall accept the bond, tag the bond with the case file and thereafter Dongo Jonko shall stand released automatically from the captivity. 8. Release ordered.