Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 56 (JHR)

Mahendra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2009-01-12

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, JAYA ROY

body2009
JUDGMENT: Amareshwar Sahay, J. - AII the three appears arise out of a same impugned judgment and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These four appellants alongwith one another co-accused namely Nandlal Prasad @ Nand Prasad Yadav (acquitted) were charged for the offence under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and were put on trial. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, has convicted all the four appellants for the offence under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them to undergo R.1. for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default R.I. for a further period of two years under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for a period of seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 3.12.1999, Truck No. BR-24M-8171 had gone to Balrampur having loaded the Lac of one Adit Sah @ Adit Sao @ Aditya Sahu (P.W. 4) of Latehar. The aforesaid Truck unloaded the said Lac at Balrampur in the District of Purulia (West Bengal) on 4.12.1999 and was returning from Balrampur to Latehar on 4.12.1999. It reached Ranchi at 4:00 P.M. It picked up its owner Most. Sita Devi (sister-in-law of the informant, since deceased) from Seva Sadan, Ranchi and proceeded for Latehar. When the said Truck did not reach Latehar till the morning of 5.12.1999, the informant (P.W. 2) with others tried to search out the said Truck. In course of search, he went to a Line Hotel of Bindeshwar Sah @ Bindeshwar Sahu (P.W. 1) situated one and half K.M. away from Kuru at Ranchi Road, Kuru where the said Truck usually used to take a halt. The informant could gather information from the aforesaid Hotel owner (P.W. 1) that his Truck had stayed at the Hotel on 4.12.1999 at about 6:45 P.M. The driver (since deceased) and Khalasi (since deceased) got down from the said Truck and ordered to prepare four cups of tea and directed the owner to prepare tea without any delay as the owner of the Truck (deceased Sita Devi) was also sitting inside the Truck. When tea was prepared, driver and khalasi took tea in the Hotel and two glasses of tea were taken inside the Truck by the Khalasi, out of which, one glass of tea was returned. Thereafter, it was uttered by the Driver that Mahendra (appellant) would not take tea but nothing was heard from inside the cabin of the said Truck. Thereafter, the said Truck moved towards Latehar. It is further stated in the written report that informant also gathered information from the said Hotel owner that two unknown persons had also come to his Hotel on the same day at 5:00 P.M. aged about 25 to 30 years. One remained outside the Hotel and another who was wearing Full Pant, T. Shirt and Jacket and 'WCE 'Bagdair' with one eye, asked the Hotel owner as to whether Bulet Singh, driver had come with vehicle? Hotel owner replied that he had not returned as yet. The informant further claims in his written report that he further gathered information from a person at Kuru, that on 4.12.1999, the said Truck turned towards Latehar from Kuru Chowk and while its speed had become slow, due to bad condition of road, in front of Kuru P.S., two persons held the cabin door of Truck. Each one on either side of the Cabin door and opened the cabin door and. entered into the cabin of the said Truck. The further case of the prosecution is that the said Truck was lying North of Amjharia Ghati unclaimed and that two dead bodies were lying near the said Truck and one dead body was lying inside the cabin of the truck. On such information, the informant went to Kuru P.S. to lodge F.I.R. but the Police of Kuru P.S. did not entertain his information. Thereafter, he went to Lohardaga to approach the S.P., who was not available but the reader of the S.P. told him that F.I.R. would be lodged in the P.S. in whose jurisdiction dead bodies would be recovered. Therefore, the informant went to the place of occurrence and lodged his F.I.R. recorded by the then O/c Chandwa P.S. at 10:00 A.M. on 7.12.1999 near Amjharia Ghati. According to the prosecution, the said Truck was forcibly taken away by the miscreants to the north of Amjharia Ghati within the jurisdiction of Chandwa P.S. and they committed murder and looted cash of As. According to the prosecution, the said Truck was forcibly taken away by the miscreants to the north of Amjharia Ghati within the jurisdiction of Chandwa P.S. and they committed murder and looted cash of As. 2 lacs and Bank Draft of Rs. 32,000/- to be given to said lac merchant. 4. The F.I.R. was registered under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B, 379, 34. of the Indian Penal Code. In course of investigation, the dead bodies of three persons namely of Sita Devi i.e. the truck owner Surendra Singh @ Bulet Singh, the Driver of the Truck and of Jitendra Thakur the cleaner of the Truck were recove;ed by the Police. According to the prosecution, in course of investigation, the accused Mahendra Prasad and the accused Chanchal Bhaskar made extra- judicial confessions leading to recovery of incriminating articles. 5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and one other accused namely Nandlal Prasad @ Nand Prasad Yadav. The accused pleaded not guilty and thereafter, the prosecution adduced both oral and documentary evidence on the basis of which, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as already stated hereinabove. 6. Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, challenging the conviction and sentence. by the Trial Court, submitted that this is a case of no evidence. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the Trial Court has committed grave error in convicting the appellants wrongly relying on the alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused Mahendra Prasad and Chanchal Bhaskar which were not admissible in evidence. It has further been submitted that the prosecution witnesses have badly contradicted each other on all material points. They are not truthful witnesses and therefore their evidence is liable to be rejected. ' 7. In order to test the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, let us scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution brought on record against the appellants. P.W. 1 Bindeshwar Sahu, who is the owner of the Line Hotel, did not support the prosecution version and therefore, he was declared hostile. P.W. 2 Binod Kumar Agarwal is the informant. He has stated that on 3.12.1999, the Truck bearing No. BR-24M-8171, had gone to Balrampur after loading Lac at Latehar. P.W. 1 Bindeshwar Sahu, who is the owner of the Line Hotel, did not support the prosecution version and therefore, he was declared hostile. P.W. 2 Binod Kumar Agarwal is the informant. He has stated that on 3.12.1999, the Truck bearing No. BR-24M-8171, had gone to Balrampur after loading Lac at Latehar. At the time of return from Balrampur, his Bhabhi namely Sita Devi (one of the victim), who was at Ranchi at that time; was picked up from Seva Sadan where their nephew was undergoing treatment. Suresh @ Bulet Singh was the Driver and Jitendra Thakur was the Khalasi of the said Truck. When the Truck did not reach Latehar till the evening on 4.12.1999 then he started making inquiry and in that course, he went to the Line Hotel, Kuru where his Truck generally used to stop for refreshment, there he got information that the Truck had stopped in front of the said Hotel and the occupants of the Truck had taken tea. He also learnt that one Mahendra also boarded the Truck there and thereafter the Truck left for its destination. He further stated that Mahendra was a local man of Latehar who used to travel of and on by the said Truck. He further stated that he received Telephonic news on 6.12.1999 that the Truck was lying abandoned at Amjharia Ghati and two dead bodies were lying near the Truck whereas one dead body was lying in the Cabin of the Truck. On such information, the informant alongwith others went to Ghati where he found the Truck alongwith dead body of Sita Devi lying inside the Cabin. Her hands were found tied and neck cut. The dead body of the driver and khalasi were also lying near the Truck having cut injuries on their neck. After lodging the F.I.R., the informant went to the house of Mahendra from where he was arrested by the Police and he confessed before him that he alongwith Bajrangi, Kaushal Toppo and Chanchal Bhaskar had committed the murder of aforesaid three persons and also looted away cash of Rs. 2 lacs as well as Bank Draft of Rs. 32,000/- and Golden Ornaments from the deceased Sita Devi. 8. P.W. 3 Ram Naresh Sharma is the doctor who had conducted the Post mortem examination on the dead body of Sita Devi, Suresh Singh @ Bulet Singh and Jltendra Thakur, the three victims. 2 lacs as well as Bank Draft of Rs. 32,000/- and Golden Ornaments from the deceased Sita Devi. 8. P.W. 3 Ram Naresh Sharma is the doctor who had conducted the Post mortem examination on the dead body of Sita Devi, Suresh Singh @ Bulet Singh and Jltendra Thakur, the three victims. From the Post mortem Report, it appears that the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:- (1) Injuries on the person of deceased Sita Devi:- Ante mortem cut on neck incised wound [6" x 4" x 4"] on neck caused by sharp weapon. Esophagus was cut. (2) Injuries on the person of deceased Suresh Singh @ Bulet Singh:- Ante mortem incised wound on neck [7" x 3" x 4"] caused by sharp weapon. Trachea was cut. Esophagus was cut. (3) Injuries on the person of deceased Jitendra Thakur:- Ante mortem incised wound on neck [7/2" x 5" x 5"] caused by sharp weapon. Trachea was cut, esophagus was cut. 9. P.W. 4 Aditya Sahu has stated in his evidence that he had transported Lac worth Rs. 2,50,000/- to Balrampur from Latehar by the said Truck No. SR-24M8171. The Driver and Khalasi had received Rs. 2 Lacs in cash and Bank Draft of Rs. 32,000/- from the lac merchant at Balrampur. On way to return Latehar, the owner of the Truck Sita Devi also boarded the Truck at Ranchi from Seva Sadan. On 7.12.1999, he came to know about the occurrence. 10. P.W. 5 Susil Kumar Agrawal has stated that on 7.12.1999, he had gone to Amjharia Ghati in search of Truck No. BR 24-M-8171 where he saw the dead body of Sita Devi in the Cabin of the Truck and the dead body of the driver and the Khalasi near the Truck on the ground. He further stated that the Inquest Report were prepared by the Police in his presence. 11. P.W. 6 Bivuti Narayan Mishra is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has proved the F.I.R as well as the seizure list. He stated that in course of investigation, the dead bodies of the aforesaid three victims were seized and the accused Chanchal Bhaskar made confession before him and on his confession, a Patuwa (Jute) Rope was recovered from the place of occurrence which was seized. He has proved the F.I.R as well as the seizure list. He stated that in course of investigation, the dead bodies of the aforesaid three victims were seized and the accused Chanchal Bhaskar made confession before him and on his confession, a Patuwa (Jute) Rope was recovered from the place of occurrence which was seized. The neck of the deceased Sita Devi was found tied with steering of the Truck with a rope. The accused Mahendra Prasad also made an extra-judicial confession. 12. The learned Trial Court has severely criticized the perfunctory investigation of the Investigating Officer in the impugned judgment by stating that the Investigating Officer did not take pain to collect the evidence as to who was the owner of the Truck, who was the Driver at the relevant period and he did not investigate as to who was the owner of the Maruti Van in question. He also did not take any step to recover the Bank Draft of Rs. 32,000/- by making any enquiry from the Bank. The seizure of the Maruti Van was also not proved. 13. Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned Sr. Advocate submitted that according to the prosecution, the accused Mahendra Prasad made confessional statement in presence of the informant P.W. 2 Binod Kumar Agrawal but said witness Binod Kumar Agrawal did not speak a word about the extra-judicial confession made by the accused Mahendra Prasad. This submission of the learned counsel does not appear to be correct as the said witness Binod Kumar Agrawal (P.W. 2), in paragraph-8 of his evidence, has stated specially that on being asked, Mahendra stated that he alongwith Bajrangi, Kaushal Toppo and Chanchal Bhaskar had committed the occurrence in which they looted away cash of Rs. 2 Lacs, Bank Draft of Rs. 32,000/- and they also committed the murder of three persons namely Sita Devi, Suresh and Jitendra. 14. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 6), in his evidence has stated that the accused Mahendra Prasad and Chanchal confessed their guilt and on the basis of the confessional statement made by Chanchal, a rope was recovered from the place of occurrence. He also found neck of the victim Sita Devi tied with the steering wheel of the Truck by means of a rope. 15. He also found neck of the victim Sita Devi tied with the steering wheel of the Truck by means of a rope. 15. From the extra-judicial confession made by the accused Mahendra Prasad as well as of the accused Chanchal Bhaskar leading to recovery of the rope which was used for commission of murder, clearly establishes the involvement of the appellants in commission of loot with murder of the aforesaid three persons. The confessional statement made by aforesaid two accused persons have not been challenged by the defence in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, in my view, the learned Trial Court did not commit any error in relying on the extra-judicial confession made by the aforesaid two accused persons namely Mahendra Prasad and Chanchal Bhaskar. The extra-judicial confession made by the two accused Mahendra Prasad and Chanchal Bhaskar can't be said to be inadmissible in evidence which has been legally brought on record. I do not find that any vital contradiction in the evidence of the P.Ws. so as to make their statements in Court unreliable. 16. In view of the above discussions and findings, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court did not commit any error in convicting and sentencing the appellants for committing offence under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against all the appellants are hereby affirmed and all the three appeals are dismissed. Jaya Roy, J.- I agree.