Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 255 (JHR)

KHAGO MANDAL v. STATE OF BIHAR

2006-03-23

N.DHINAKAR, R.R.PRASAD

body2006
Judgment : ( 1 ) THE appellants were arrayed as A-1, A-5 and A-6 before the additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar. They were tried along with Jitlal Mandal, Basudeo mandal and Dongan Mandal, who were arrayed as A-2, A-3 and A-4. In the judgment, the appellants, who were arrayed as A-1, A-5 and A-6, were convicted under Section 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Indian penal code and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the other accused, who were acquitted and arrayed as A-2, A-3 and A-4 will be referred to as the A-2, A-3 and A-4, in the same order, as they were arrayed before the trail court, for the sake of convenience. ( 2 ) THE deceased Baldeo Mandal is the son of Ganashyam Mandal, PW-1, and his mother is Degni Devi, PW-6, PW-7, Ugiya devi, is the wife of deceased. PW-3, Sabita devi, is the daughter of the deceased and pw-10, Amrit Mandal, is the brother of the deceased. On 29-1-1986, the appellants (A-1, A-5 and A-6)went to the house of the deceased, Baldeo Mandal, and the deceased went along with them to join duty in the Railway department, where he was working. But he did not return home that night. On the next day, PW-10, who went in search of his brother, returned to tell his father, PW-1, that his brother had been killed and body had been thrown in drainage. PW-1, the father of the deceased went and found the dead body of his son lying near a railway track. The body was found in two pieces. He informed PW-11, the Station Master, jagdishpur Railway Station, by telling him that his son must have been run over by a train. He requested PW-11 to hand over the dead body but the Station Master, PW-11, refused to hand over the body and informed the Government Railways Police, who, in turn, seized the body and sent it to the hospital for post mortem. ( 3 ) ON receipt of the requisition and the dead body, PW-12, Dr. Kapil Muni Mishra, attached to the Giridih Government Hospital, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Baldeo Mondal. ( 3 ) ON receipt of the requisition and the dead body, PW-12, Dr. Kapil Muni Mishra, attached to the Giridih Government Hospital, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Baldeo Mondal. He found the following ante mortem and post mortem injuries on his person:" (1) Ligature mark encircling whole of neck. Horizontally and slightly depressed about 1" in breadth placed just below thyroid cartilage. On dissection - the base is pale and reddish and Ecchymosed margin, extravasations of blood into the subcutaneous tissues, adjacent muscles of the neck are lacerated. Cornea of thyroid cartilage fractured. The mucosa of trachea congested and contains frothy mucus. (2) Lacerated wound 1" x " x scalp deep at left perital region ; (3) Incised wound 3" x 1" x sclap deep at left perital region medical and posterior to the injury No. 2; (4) Lacerated wound " x 1/4 " beside left eye; on dissection of thorax-Lung-Congested and dark coloured blood comes after cutting. Heart blood in right side. Post Mortem injuries: - (1) Body separated into two pieces at the level of above umbilicus and lacerations of abdominal wall, muscles, visceras, vertebras; (2) Left fore-arm separated below elbow join and lacerated margins". ( 4 ) THE doctor issued Ext. 3, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that the deceased must have died on account of strangulation. Thereafter, a crime was registered on the basis of Ext. 4, the Fardbayan, given to Ambika Das, Sub Inspector of Police, pw-Investigation was taken up by PW-13 and inquest was conducted. After the completion of investigation, the final report was filed against all the accused appellants, including the acquitted accused. ( 5 ) WHEN the appellants and others were questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , on the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them they denied all the incriminating circumstances. They examined DW-1 and DW-2 and through D. W. 2 marked Ext. A, a Register kept and maintained at Railways department, to show that A-6, Seva mandal, who was convicted by the trial court, was, in fact, on duty at the time of occurrence. P. C. , on the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them they denied all the incriminating circumstances. They examined DW-1 and DW-2 and through D. W. 2 marked Ext. A, a Register kept and maintained at Railways department, to show that A-6, Seva mandal, who was convicted by the trial court, was, in fact, on duty at the time of occurrence. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the prosecution having relied upon circumstantial evidence ought to have established all the links in the chain of circumstances and the prosecution having failed to established any of the links in the chain of the circumstance, the trial Court was not justified in finding the appellants guilty. ( 7 ) ON the above contention, we have heard Mr. R. Mukhopadhaya, learned A. P. P. for the State. ( 8 ) THE body of the Baldeo Mandal was seen lying near a railway track at 8. 15 A. M. on 30-1-1986 by his father, PW-1, ganashayam Mandal, who initially felt that his son must have been run over by a train. He therefore, requested PW-11, the Station master of Jagdishpur Railway Station, to hand over the dead body; but PW-11, in turn, informed the Government Railway police and they sent the dead body to the hospital for post mortem. The post mortem was conducted by PW-12, Dr. Kapil Muni sharma, Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to Giridih Government hospital, who, after post mortem, came to the conclusion that the death of Baldeo Mandal was on account of homicidal violence as he noted ligature mark on the neck. He issued Ext. 3, the post mortem certificate with his opinion. ( 9 ) WE, therefore, on the above medical evidence, hold that Baldeo Mandal died on account of homicidal violence, which fact was not disputed either before the trial Court or before this Court. ( 10 ) THE prosecution, in order to establish that the appellants committed the murder of the deceased, Baldeo Mandal, relied upon the circumstantial evidence. ( 9 ) WE, therefore, on the above medical evidence, hold that Baldeo Mandal died on account of homicidal violence, which fact was not disputed either before the trial Court or before this Court. ( 10 ) THE prosecution, in order to establish that the appellants committed the murder of the deceased, Baldeo Mandal, relied upon the circumstantial evidence. In Deonandan Mishra v. The State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1955 SC 801 , the Supreme court held that where there is no eye-witness to the murder and the case against the accused depends entirely on circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof required to convict the accused on such evidence is that the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by these circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. ( 11 ) KEEPING the above principle in mind, when we look at the evidence relied by the prosecution, we find that the prosecution did not establish any of the links in the chain of circumstances which will conclusively prove that the deceased was murdered by the appellants. ( 12 ) ACCORDING to PW-1, on 29-1-1986 the deceased left in the company of the appellants to join the duty in the Railway department where he was working. Admittedly, A-6 was also working in the Railway department. So, no sinister motive can be attributed to the appellants taking the deceased with them. It is the case of the prosecution, as could be seen from the evidence of PW-1, the father of the deceased, that when his son did not return home, he asked PW-10, his other son, to go in search of the deceased. According to PW-10, he went in search of his brother and later finding the body, returned to the house and informed his father, PW-11, by telling him that the body of his brother is lying near a railway track. PW-1 went to the railway track and found the dead body in two pieces and then informed pw-11, the Station Master, with a request to hand over him the dead body. PW-1 went to the railway track and found the dead body in two pieces and then informed pw-11, the Station Master, with a request to hand over him the dead body. Apart from the above evidence of PW-1 that the deceased and appellants left together on the evening of 29-1-1986, there is absolutely no legal evidence to show that the deceased was strangled to death by the appellants and later the body was thrown on the railway track for it to be run over by a train. ( 13 ) IN the absence of any conclusive evidence and the prosecution not having established any of the links in the chain of circumstance we cannot find the accused guilty. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellants. ( 14 ) THE appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted. It is reported that the appellants are on bail; they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .