Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 198 (JHR)

Maldeo Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2010-02-02

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The instant appeal is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.6.2000 passed by Sri Hemshankar Kumar Singh, 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No. 515 of 1993 by which judgment all the appellant has been found guilty for the offence u/s 364 of the I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,0001- and in default, further R.I. for 1 year. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel• for the appellant that it is a case of circumstantial evidence where the circumstances that the appellants have kidnapped the deceased, Rajan Singh, son of the informant on 9.12.1990 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that during trial the prosecution has changed the entire prosecution case and motive of such kidnapping. Further, he has argued that P.W. 3 was subsequently, introduced to make out a case of last seen which has not been stated in the F.I.R. and as such the conviction of the appellants based on the evidence of P.W. 3 is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that although, it is not stated in the F.I.R. that love affair between the daughter of the appellant no. 1, Maldeo Singh with the son of the informant was the cause of kidnapping and murder, but subsequently, prosecution has given full evidence regarding the same. Moreover, while at the time of F.I.R. everything cannot be written and it has been held by various judgment of the Supreme Court that F.I.R. is not ,a document containing all aspect of the prosecution case. In that view of the matter, conviction of the appellants is well founded and requires no interference by this court. 5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of the written report given by the informant, Bhola Singh-P.W. 4 stating therein that he is a retired employee of railway and after retirement he is living in his house at Village-Gurha with his family members. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of the written report given by the informant, Bhola Singh-P.W. 4 stating therein that he is a retired employee of railway and after retirement he is living in his house at Village-Gurha with his family members. He has stated that Akhaj Singh has got his house just by his house in the same Village-Gurha where he lives with his sons Jugeshwar Singh, Maldeo Singh, Sudama Singh, Niwas Singh and Pannu Singh. He has stated that there used to be a fight between the sons of Akhaj Singh and him and who were always ready to assault him and his family members and he had given a sanha dated 28.10.1990 also in that respect that he has got apprehension that they can do anything to his family members. He has further stated that on 9.12.1990 his son Rajan Singh went to Rehla Bazar and never returned. He has further stated that Maldeo Singh, after the elopement of his son, told him that he will not get the dead body of his son. He has stated that Maldeo Singh and his brothers have kidnapped his son and they have committed his murder and dispose of the dead body. 6. On the basis of the said written report, police registered a case u/s 364 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons and after investigation submitted charge-sheet. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned C.J.M. committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge and finally the case was tried by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, who found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 7. It appears that the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. P.W. 1 is Awadhesh Kumar Singh. P.W. 2 is Jira Devi. P.W. 3 is Anil Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh. P.W. 4 is Bhola Singh, informant of the case. P.W. 5 is Lallu Tiwary. P.W. 6 is Meghnath Dixit. P.W. 7 is Baijnath Sao. P.W. 8 is Bishwanath Sao. P.W. 9 is Raj Kumar Singh. P.W. 10 is Dukhan Ram. P.W. 11 is Narendra Singh, Investigating Officer of the case. 8. It is important to note that P.Ws. P.W. 4 is Bhola Singh, informant of the case. P.W. 5 is Lallu Tiwary. P.W. 6 is Meghnath Dixit. P.W. 7 is Baijnath Sao. P.W. 8 is Bishwanath Sao. P.W. 9 is Raj Kumar Singh. P.W. 10 is Dukhan Ram. P.W. 11 is Narendra Singh, Investigating Officer of the case. 8. It is important to note that P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 have turned hostile and they have stated nothing in the court with regard to the case of the prosecution. 9. P.W. 1, Awadhesh Kr. Singh has stated in the court that his brother, Rajan Singh had a love affair with Anamika, daugther of the appellant no. 1, Maldeo Singh and they had illegal relationship also. She used to come to his house and stayed with his brother even in the night and wanted to marry him. But mother and father of Anamika were not ready for the marriage. He has stated that 5 years back, Rajan had gone to Rehla Bazar to take vegetables alongwith Anil Singh. From the Rehla Bazar, the accused Jugeshwar Singh, Sriniwas Singh, Sudama Singh and Pannu Singh caught hold of his brother and stated that officer-in-charge has called him and thereafter, he never returned. He produced the photograph of his brother with the daughter of Maldeo Singh namely Anamika @ Guria which is marked as 'X' for identification. He has also produced the letters written by her and proved the handwritting of Anamika which are marked as Exts.-1 and 1/c. He has also proved the letter written by mother of Anamika marked as Ext.-1/2. In the cross-examination he has stated that when his brother had gone to bring vegetables, he was at his home. His father had informed the police about the elopement of his brother and relationship of his brother with the daughter of the accused. He has stated that Anil Singh is the son of his mama. He lives in Village-Goderma which is two kilometers from Village-Rehla. He has stated that he had given the photograph to the police also while he was giving the statement to the police. He has stated in cross-examination that many a time, Anamika used to meet his brother in his presence. In cross-examination he also stated that Anamika was married in Uttar Pradesh in Village-Sirsi one year after the occurrence of elopement of his brother. He has stated in cross-examination that many a time, Anamika used to meet his brother in his presence. In cross-examination he also stated that Anamika was married in Uttar Pradesh in Village-Sirsi one year after the occurrence of elopement of his brother. He has stated that he is quite versed with the handwriting and signature of Anamika. 10. P.W. 2, Jira Devi is the mother of the victim, has stated that• 5% years back her son Rajan had love affairs with daughter of Maldeo Singh namely, Anamika @ Guria. She stated Guria used to stay in the house in day as well as in the night time. She used to cross the roof of her house and came to the roof of the house of Rajan. She had informed this to the mother of Anamika as well as to the father, Maldeo Singh. She had also stated that her son never went to the house of Anamika. rather the said girl used to come to the house of Rajan. Maldeo Singh and his brothers had threated that they will kill Rajan. Guria had also stated this one month before and within one month her son, Rajan was kidnapped and killed. She identified the accused in the court. She has stated before the police also these accused persons are responsible for the murder. In her cross-examination she has stated that she had also seen all these 5 accused persons taking away her son. She had informed that she had also seen the accused persons taking away her son. Rajan before her husband gave information to the police. In cross-examination she has stated that she had told police that daughter of Maldeo Singh had told her that she will marry none-else except Rajan. 11. P.W. 3, Anil Singh has stated in the court that on 9.12.1990 he had gone to' Village-Garha and from there he alongwith his brother, Rajan went to Rehla Bazar at about 5.00 p.m. in the evening. In the market he met Maldeo Singh, who was alongwith his brother Jugeshwar Singh, Pannu Singh, Sriniwas Singh and Sudama Singh. Maldeo Singh stated holding hands of Rajan that he is called for by the officer-in-charge of the thana and took him with them. After purchasing vegetables he went to the police station, but there he found that nobody is there. Maldeo Singh stated holding hands of Rajan that he is called for by the officer-in-charge of the thana and took him with them. After purchasing vegetables he went to the police station, but there he found that nobody is there. Then he came back to the house of Bhola Singh, his 'Phupha' and asked him whether Rajan had came back or not. When he was informed that Rajan had not come back, he went to search for him and it became night. They went to the police station and informed the Bara Babu, who told them to search Rajan in the house of their relatives also. They again went for the trace of Rajan. Subsequently, Maldeo Singh stated that now they will not able to see even the dead body of Rajan. He stated that all the 5 accused persons have kidnapped and committed murder of his brother. He found that there was no case of coal theft against Rajan. He has stated that he had given his statement to the police which was taken on 9.12.1990. He has stated that the informant, Bhola Singh is his Phupha. 12. P.W. 4, Bhola Singh, informant and father of the deceased has stated that the occurrence is of 9.12.1990. His son, Rajan Singh had love affair and on the date of occurrence, he had gone to purchase vegetables at Rehla Bazar alongwith Anil Singh where the accused Maldeo Singh alongwith his brothers Sudama, Srinivas, Jugeshwar and Punnu came and asked Rajan Singh to accompany them and took him to the police station, but he was never seen, thereafter. The occurrence had taken place due to love affairs with Guria, daughter of Maldeo Singh. He has stated that she used to came to the house. One day she closed the door from inside, then the accused came and took her by force and he also broke her hand. He has also identified the photograph filed by his son in the court. He has admitted in cross-examination that had stated in the F.I.R. that he has got old enmity with the accused persons. 13. P.W. 5 has turned hostile, P.W. 6 has stated nothing. P.Ws. 7, 8 have also stated nothing. P.W. 9, Raj Kumar Singh has stated that the photograph seized by the Daroga from the roof of one Nagina Singh belongs to Bhola Singh marked as Ext.-2. 13. P.W. 5 has turned hostile, P.W. 6 has stated nothing. P.Ws. 7, 8 have also stated nothing. P.W. 9, Raj Kumar Singh has stated that the photograph seized by the Daroga from the roof of one Nagina Singh belongs to Bhola Singh marked as Ext.-2. He also identified the photograph marked as 'X' for identification. In his cross-examination, however he has stated that he was not knowing the girl, the photograph of whom he identified in the court. P.W. 10 has also not supported the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile. But, he denied that Rajan Singh has any criminal history or that he was involved in coal theft. . 14. P.W. 11, Nagendra Singh, Investigating Officer of the case has proved the formal F.I.R. and written report marked as Exts.-2 and 3. He also confirmed that statement of Anil Singh was recorded on 21.9.1991. He has also stated in cross-examination that he had not recorded any criminal history of the victim, Rajan Singh nor there is any case pending against him. 15. Thus, after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution has brought the love letters and other documents to prove that there was love affairs between the victim, Rajan Singh and Anamika, daughter of Maldeo Singh, Appellant No. 1 and she wanted to marry him and she used to came to the room of the house in day time even in the night time for which the appellants had given threatening to commit his murder. By the evidences of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4, the prosecution has proved that appellant were last seen taking away the victim; Rajan Singh from the market. Thereafter, it is given in the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 as also the evidence of P.W. 2 that accused, Maldeo Singh had given threatening that now since, his son has eloped, they will not able to see his dead body, Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in the F.I.R. the informant had not clearly stated that the enmity was due to love affair between Rajan and Anamika and subsequently, a story was created. It appears from the F.I.R. that although, there is no specific statement that enmity was due to love affairs, but P.W. 3 and the informant very clearly stated that there was enmity between two family and that the accused had given threat that they will commit the murder of any of the family members. It is settled principle of law that fardbeyan is not an exhaustive document giving all pros and cons, which may be disclosed during trial. But, subsequently, the evidences have very clearly stated that the enmity was due to love affairs between the daughter of Maldeo Singh and son of the informant and that it was the cause of occurrence. It has also came in the evidence that after the elopement of son of the informant, daughter of Maldeo Singh was married in Uttar Pradesh. In that view of the matter, only because the love affair was not disclosed in the F.I.R. the prosecution case cannot be doubted. 16. In the result, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. It appears that appellants are on bail. Hence, their bail bond is cancelled and the trial court is directed to issue warrant of arrest against them for serving out the sentence.