Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 119 (PAT)

Ramashish Das v. State Of Bihar

2004-01-27

CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD, RAM NANDAN PRASAD

body2004
Judgment RAM NANDAN PRASAD and CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD JJ. 1. The appellant Ramashish Das stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, under impugned judgment dated 20th July, 2000 of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur passed in Sessions Trial NO. 100/54 of 1997. 2. This is a case of circumstantial evidence added with extra-judicial confession of the appellant on which the prosecution seeks conviction of the appellant. The prosecution commenced with the fardbeyan of the informant Bihari Das who stated in his fardbeyan recorded on 16th September 1997, at about 4,00 a.m. at Kabir Math, Rasalpur that he was residing at the Math since last three months and that one day ago (15.09.1996) at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant had come to the Math and he had gone to the roof of the Math house and had talked with Mahanthjee, i.e., the deceased Ram Lakhan Das and, thereafter, he had left the Math at 8.00 p.m. Then" it is said that Mahanth Ram Lakhan Das (the deceased) came down from the roof and he took his meal and, thereafter, he went out of the Math on the road for a stroll. After the deceased had his meal, the informant took his meal and thereafter, it was at about 9.00 p.m. that he heard some hulla raised by the appellant "dekha hamare yahan kaun aael hat (Look, who has come to my house). Hearing the hullo the informant along with PW 4 Ram Narayan Pandit (not examined) and some others went to informants house. When he (the informant) reached there, the appellant stood at the door of his house and he prohibited the informant from entering into the house. The informant asked Ram Narayan Pandit as to what the matter was and then Ram Narayan Pandit said that Mahanth Ram Lakhan Das (the deceased) had been killed. Then the informant weeping returned to his Math and thereafter, he, along with PWs 1, 4, 11 as well as Jay Narayan Rai and Ram Bhajan Thakur (not examined) and some others again went to appellants house and he saw that in the angan of the house, deceased Ram Lakhan Das smeared with blood was lying dead on a cot with his face down and his head was crushed. About the motive of the occurrence, the informant alleged that deceaseds Guru Dukha Das had settled some residential land with Darogi Das, father of the appellant in lieu of work done for the Math but since some days, the appellant and others were not doing the work of Math, hence, the deceased was pressurising the appellants, his brother Ram Das and father Darogi Das to vacate the land and that due to this the appellant, his brother and father killed the deceased. 3. As many as fifteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution in this case. PW 3 Bihari Das is the informant himself. PW 1 Tej Narayan Singh PW 2 Hare Kishan Mahto @ Bathu and PW 4 Nand Kishore Singh are the witnesses on the point of having come to the angan and seen the dead body and they also say about the extra-judicial confession of the appellant. PW 5 is the Investigating Officer. PW 7 Dr. Ram Pravesh Rai is the Doctor who held the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. PW 6 Lalbabu Singh is a constable who produced blood soaked soil and some other articles seized from the P.O. PW 8 Maheshwar Singh was examined as a witness, but he stated that he knew nothing about the occurrence and that he had no talk with the informant. PW 9 Jay Kishun Pandit, PW 12 Shyam Das, PW 13 Pano Devi, PW 14 Dineshwar Singh and PW 15 Shambhu Narayan Singh are witnesses who were declared hostile by the prosecution. PWs 14 and 15 stated in their examination-in-chief that when they had gone to the angan of the appellant, the appellant had disclosed that the deceased had tried to commit rape on the wife of his brother Ram Das and, hence, he had killed him. PW 10 Uday Prasad Singh simply deposed that he had gone to appellants angan and had seen the dead body of the deceased. PW 11 Baleshwar Singh said that he had informed the Superintendent of Police on phone about the occurrence. For proper appreciation of the facts, it is relevant to discuss the evidence of the Doctor first. 4. PW 7 Or. PW 11 Baleshwar Singh said that he had informed the Superintendent of Police on phone about the occurrence. For proper appreciation of the facts, it is relevant to discuss the evidence of the Doctor first. 4. PW 7 Or. Ram Pravesh Rai "Vikal" is the Doctor who deposed that on 16th September, 1996 at 1.00 p.m. he conducted the P.M. examination on the dead body of Mahanth Ram Lakhan Das and found the following ante mortem injuries : (i) One ilacerated wound 6"xl/4"x cavity deep over right side of skull, with fracture and loss of right perietal bone with skin over the bone. Brain matters and manenges were out from the cavity. (ii) Swelling l-l/2"xl" on the right eye-brow. (iii) Lacerated wound l/2"xl/2" on left lower eye lid. ON DIS SECTION, the doctor found as follows : (a) Right parietal bone, occipital bone and left parietal bone were fractured. Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. Weapon used was hard and blunt substance, such as back portion of spade, Musal and Bamboo pieces. The doctor opined that the death of the deceased occurred due to shock and. haemorrhage as a result of above injuries. The P.M. report was marked as Ext-7. In the cross-examination, the Doctor deposed that the external injuries appeared to have been caused by different impacts probably caused by different types of hard and blunt substances. Thus, according to the Doctor, the deceased was killed not only by one type of hard and blunt substance but different types of hard and blunt substances. 5. The I.O. (PW 5) testified that on 16th September 1996 at about 1.30 a.m. when he returned to the P.S. after patrolling duty, and perused the Station Diary Entry No. 316 dated 16th September 1996 he learnt that one Mahanth had been killed in village Rasalpur and that learning this he along with Nagendra Nath Tiwary, A.S.I. left for the place and reached village Rasalpur at 3.30 a.m. Reaching there, he learnt that Mahanth Ram Lakhan Das was killed in the angan of Ramashish Das (the appellant) and then he reached the angan. Then he says that he went to Kabir Math situated at a short distance from the angan and there he recorded the fardheyan of the informant at 4.30 a.m. The fardbeyan has been marked Ext.- 2. Then he says that he went to Kabir Math situated at a short distance from the angan and there he recorded the fardheyan of the informant at 4.30 a.m. The fardbeyan has been marked Ext.- 2. The fardbeyan was forwarded to the town P.S., Samastipur for institution of a case. He says that he took up the investigation of the case. He prepared the inquest report. The inquest report is marked Ext-4. He further deposed at Para-5 that he had seized one wood Musal,one bamboo piece about 4 feet, one spade as well as one pair of slippers and that those things which were blood stained. He also says to have seized one 2-cell torch light as well as one sword of three feet length. He further testified to have seized one blood stained flying shirt from the body of the appellant. A seizure-list was prepared for the above seizure and the seizure-list is marked Ext-5. He says that the dead-body was sent for P.M. Examination. He further deposed at Para-8 that there was a lemon tree in the angan and beneath the tree the dead body was kept on a bamboo cot and that on the cot and below the cot, there was blood. Blood was also on the lemon tree. At Para-12 of his evidence, the I.O. clarified that the blood stained pair of slippers was lady slipper. At Para-14 of his evidence, that I.O. deposed that on 16th September 1996, In the very angan itself he had recorded the fardbeyan of Pramila Devi wife of Ramashish Das (appellant) and Samastipur Town (M) P.S. Case No. 325 of 1996 under Sections 448 and 376/511 IPC had been registered and that in that case, the deceased Ram Lakhan Das was accused. About the present case, i.e. the case in which this appellant had been tried and convicted, the I.O. said that the fardbeyan of the case was recorded which constitutes the next case. i e Samastipur Town (M) P.S. Case No. 326/1996 under Section 302/34 IPC. In Para-15 of his evidence the I.O. deposed that during the investigation of this case, he learnt that the murder of deceased Ram Lakhan Das took place due to the deceaseds attempt to commit rape. i e Samastipur Town (M) P.S. Case No. 326/1996 under Section 302/34 IPC. In Para-15 of his evidence the I.O. deposed that during the investigation of this case, he learnt that the murder of deceased Ram Lakhan Das took place due to the deceaseds attempt to commit rape. At Paral-19 he deposed that Hare Krishna Mahto (PW 2) had stated before him that Ramashish Das (the appellant) and Ramdas (acquitted accused) had confessed before him (PW 2) that they had killed the deceased who tried to commit rape on appellants wife. While deposing at Para-12 the I.O. identified the seized articles which were marked Exts-(i) and (V). 6. The informant deposed in his evidence stating practically the same fact as he stated in his fardbeyan, but with the only addition that on going to the appellants angan, he asked the appellant as to what he had done whereupon the appellant had stated that the deceased had tried to remove him from his lands, hence, he had finished the deceased. This is important to note that the fardbeyan contains the detailed statement about the occurrence but the very extra-judicial confession as said in the evidence of the informant is missing in the fardbeyan and there is no explanation for this. At para-18 of his evidence, the informant stated that after hearing some sound of stroke of lathi he had gone out and he had seen that on the road, an altercation was going on between the appellant and the deceased and that he had not intervened into the altercation and leaving the deceased and the appellant there, he had returned to the Math. This is an additional circumstance which has also been suppressed in the fardbeyan. PW I Tej Narayan Singh has deposed about going to the informants angan and seeing the dead body there. This witness says that he along with PW 4, PW 15 and Dafadar Yogendra Pandey and Ram Bhajan Thakur (not examined) had gone to the angan. But this witness does not say anything about any confession made by the appellant there. 7. PW 2 Hare Krisana Mahto deposed similar to PW 1. But he says that the appellant had conferred before him that he (the appellant) and his brother had killed the deceased; because the deceased was pressurising to remove their house from the Math land. But this witness does not say anything about any confession made by the appellant there. 7. PW 2 Hare Krisana Mahto deposed similar to PW 1. But he says that the appellant had conferred before him that he (the appellant) and his brother had killed the deceased; because the deceased was pressurising to remove their house from the Math land. At Para-9 this witness admitted that he had not disclosed before the I.O. about the talks which he had made with 8. PW 4 does also testify on similar lines like PWs 1 and 2 and he says that when he had gone to the appellants angan, Dafadar Yogendra Pandey had asked the appellant there whereupon the appellant had confessed that he, his brother and father, all the three had killed the deceased. This is to be noted here that this witness says that the appellant had confessed on being questioned by Dafadar Yogendra Pandey but the prosecution has not examined said Yogendra Pandey who could have testified best as to the extra-judicial confession as made by the appellant. 9. PW 11 Baleshwar Singh is also an important witness of this case. This witness has deposed that when he was not permitted to entere into the angan, he informed the Superintendent of Police on phone. At Para-5 of his cross-examination, this witness says that the deceased was habituated to teasing the ladies of the village and for that panchayati had been held several times in the village. He also deposed that the deceased used to bring females at the Math and engage in dirty activities with the females. This is also deposed by this witness that the deceased was habituated to wine and woman and that he had spoiled the very sanctity of the Math. The evidence of this witness gives different picture about the habits and activities in which the deceased was indulged. 10. Considering the evidence of the vital witnesses, as discussed above, the following positions emerge : (i) that the dead body of the deceased was found in the appellants angan. (ii) that the appellant made extrajudicial confession to the effect that he killed the deceased, and (iii) that a blood stained T-shirt was also recovered from the person of the appellant. These are the three grounds which are relied on by the prosecution and conviction is sought on its basis. (ii) that the appellant made extrajudicial confession to the effect that he killed the deceased, and (iii) that a blood stained T-shirt was also recovered from the person of the appellant. These are the three grounds which are relied on by the prosecution and conviction is sought on its basis. Let us examine critically the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant. The evidence relating to the extra-judicial confession is the evidence of PW 2 who says about the confession made by the appellant but at Para-9 of his evidence he admits that he had not stated before the I.O. about his talks with the appellant. Thus, when this witness did not disclose his talks with the I.O., his disclosure about the confession in evidence becomes shaky. PW 3, the very informant says in his evidence that the appellant had confessed before him but he does not disclose the confession in his fardbeyan which was recorded at the earliest hour. The informant loses credance over his evidence relating to the confession when he has not disclosed the same in his fardbeyan. PW 4 has also come to say that the appellant had confessed. PW 4 further stated that on being questioned by Dafadar Yogendra Pandey, the appellant had confessed. Thus, so far the confession coming through the evidence of PW 4 is concerned, Dafadar Yogendra Pandey should have been the best witness to say about the confession but the prosecution has not examined him. In such view of the matter, we do not feel it safe to place much reliance on the confession as deposed by PW 4. PW 14 who is a hostile witness does say something about the confession made by the appellant, but he says it to have been made altogether in a different context that the appellant had stated that when the deceased had tried to commit rape upon his wife, he had killed him. PW 14 even further went to the extent of saying that prior to the occurrence, the deceased had entered into the house of the daughter of Baleshwar Paswan for which a case had been filed against him. These are the only materials which are relied by the prosecution for proving the confessional statement. PW 14 even further went to the extent of saying that prior to the occurrence, the deceased had entered into the house of the daughter of Baleshwar Paswan for which a case had been filed against him. These are the only materials which are relied by the prosecution for proving the confessional statement. But in view of the discussions, as made above, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond doubt that the appellant had made extra-judicial confession. 11 The prosecution story is that while the deceased had gone out on a stroll he was killed and the dead body was thrown in the appellants angan. But there is also evidence adduced by the PWs themselves that the deceased was engaged in dirty activities with the ladies of the village and that he had made the Math land abode of wine and women. Even the evidence of the I.O. (PW 5 at Para-15) is that during the course of investigation, it had transpired that the deceased had been killed while trying to commit rape. The I.O. also states about the recording of fardbeyan of Pramila Devi, wife of appellant and which case was recorded prior to the recording of this very case. The I.O. has further deposed at Para 12 that the pair of blood stained slippers seized from the P.O. were lady sleepers. These circumstances and the evidence indicate a different story; rather than the prosecution story that the deceased was killed while he was on a stroll on the road. The prosecution has relied much on the recovery of the dead body from the appellants angan and the blood stained flying shirt from the body of the informant. No doubt, these are important materials of the prosecution case but they can simply be considered as materials that the dead body was found in the appellants angan and blood stained T-shirt was recovered from his person and that simply finding of these materials cannot be considered as conclusive proof to indicate that the appellant had committed murder. It appears from the prosecution case that the P.O. house was habited not only by the appellant but by his brother, father and wife also. Even the I.O. has come to say that he had learnt that the deceased was killed while he was trying to commit rape on appellantss wife. It appears from the prosecution case that the P.O. house was habited not only by the appellant but by his brother, father and wife also. Even the I.O. has come to say that he had learnt that the deceased was killed while he was trying to commit rape on appellantss wife. Blood stained lady slippers were also found near the P.O. This is important to note that the blood contained on the appellantss T-shirt was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for its examination in order to find out whether it was human blood or not. Thus, under these circumstances, when the house was habited by three other persons also, the simple finding of the dead body in the angan and blood on appellants shirt cannot be considered as an essential circumstance to indicate that it was the appellant alone who had killed the deceased. These circumstances cannot be considered as conclusive proof to indicate guilt of the accused in the commission of alleged murder of the deceased. 12. Thus, considering the facts and cumstances of the case and the evidence on the record, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. Consequently, the charges are held not proved and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside. The appellant Ramashish Das who is in custody is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.