Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1410 (PAT)

Navin Sharma v. State of Bihar

2012-10-04

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
S.A. KHAN, J.:–The appellant has been found guilty under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 348 of 1989. 2. The First Information Report has been instituted on 5.3.1988 for an occurrence which took place on 25.12.1988. The informant who is the father of the victim boy has stated that he lives and works in Kolkata. When he came to know about his son being kidnapped, he reached the village on 31.1.1989. He claims to have tried to trace his son, but he could not find him. Later, he came to know that his son had been seen with Navin Sharma and therefore, requested the Mukhiya for an enquiry from Navin Sharma. On enquiry being made, Navin Sharma is said to have informed the Mukhiya that Pramod Sharma had gone with him to see a picture at Bhagalpur. After watching the movie, the appellant is said to have left him, whereas Pramod Sharma disappeared from Bhagalpur. Navin Sharma claims that he went to Katihar and stayed with Ambika Sharma and, thereafter, he returned to his village on 26.1.1988. Navin Sharma is also said to have disclosed that he had gone to Silliguri for the purposes of seeking employment. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of Navin Sharma the informant claims that he has strong suspicion that Navin is responsible for kidnapping his son. It has also been alleged in the First Information Report that his wife had found some silver ornaments and money missing from her trunk. The informant and his wife lived in the Mahadeopur, which is the matrimonial home of his wife. On the basis of the said allegations, the First Information Report was instituted. 3. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses to support their case. P.W. 8 is the Investigation Officer of this case. The rest of the witnesses allegedly support the case of kidnapping. P.W. 1, Om Prakash Sah claims to have seen Pramod Sharma at Bhagalpur station along with Navin Sharma and some other persons at about 11 P.M. in the night. He had gone to find out about the trains to Dhanbad at Bhagalpur station and in that process had seen Pramod Sharma. In his cross-examination, he states that he does not remember the day on which he went Dhanbad. He had gone to find out about the trains to Dhanbad at Bhagalpur station and in that process had seen Pramod Sharma. In his cross-examination, he states that he does not remember the day on which he went Dhanbad. Apart from this there is no importance of this witness. He claims to be a chance witness and the only evidence that has come is that he saw Pramod Sharma with Navin Sharma. 4. P.W. 2, Subas Rai claims that he saw Pramod and Navin together at about 9 A.M. in the morning. His evidence is not of much help to the prosecution. He learnt about the said occurrence from the people of the village and the Mukhiya of the village. His evidence does not help the prosecution as it is varies with the prosecution case. It is nobody’s case that Pramod Sharma was missing since the morning rather a case has been made out that he left his house to see a movie with Navin Sharma sometime in the afternoon, which infact as the evidence would reveal in this case, is also a doubtful proposition made out by the prosecution. 5. P.W. 3, Srikant Sharma had met Navin Sharma and Pramod Sharma walking on the road. According to this witness Navin Sharma was carrying a bag. Apart from this fact no fact has been revealed by this witness. 6. P.W. 4, Ram Lakhan Choudhary claims that he was examined by the Investigating Officer after couple of months. It is said that the informant told him that the Investigating Officer would be coming to examine him in this case. He learnt about the occurrence from the mother of Pramod Sharma. He also claims that Navin Sharma is said to have stated before the Mukhiya that he had gone to Bhagalpur along with Pramod Sharma to see a picture and that Pramod Sharma remained at Bhagalpur while he i.e. Navin Sharma went to Katihar. 7. P.W. 5, Tusa Devi is the mother of the kidnapped boy. She has made out a case that Navin Sharma came to call her son from the house. After a couple of days she found that ½ Kg. of silver and some money was missing from her trunk. According to her she tried to look for her son however, he could not be found. She has made out a case that Navin Sharma came to call her son from the house. After a couple of days she found that ½ Kg. of silver and some money was missing from her trunk. According to her she tried to look for her son however, he could not be found. Later one Gurudeo went to Kolkata to give information to her husband regarding the missing boy. She admits that she lives in her father’s house after her marriage along with her husband. She further claims that her father has four daughters and some other family who also live in the village. She denies that Navin Sharma is her father’s “Gotia”. She denies the statement that her son Navin Sharma used to run away from the house and that he left his home on 25.12.1988 without any coercion and infact has not been kidnapped. 8. The informant has been examined as P.W. 6. Rajendra Sharma claims that he was informed regarding his son’s kidnapping on 30.12.1987 through Gurudeo. He left Kolkata on 31.12.1987. After which he tried to locate his son having failed he had filed the First Information Report on 5.3.1988. He also claims that he went to the Mukhiya and asked him to enquire the whereabouts of his son from Navin Sharma. According to the informant Navin Sharma is said to have disclosed that he along with Pramod Sharma had gone to Bhagalpur where they watched a movie at Sharda Talkies and thereafter at about 9 P.M. Navin Sharma went to Sahebganj from where he went to Katihar and stayed with Ambika Sharma. Navin Sharma also visited Silliguri in context with the job and Navin Sharma returned to the village after one month. A written confession was presented by the informant. The defence objected to the document being exhibited in Court. In the cross-examination, attention of this witness has been drawn to the fact as to whether he had stated before the Investigating Officer that Gurudeo Sharma had come to Kolkata to give information regarding his missing son. According to P.W. 6, several persons namely Subhash Rai, Om Prakash Sah, Sri Kant Sharma, Bindeshwari Paswan, Bhola Rai and others were present at the time when the Mukhiya is said to have recorded the statement of Navin Sharma. He denies that his son was in the habit of running away from his home. According to P.W. 6, several persons namely Subhash Rai, Om Prakash Sah, Sri Kant Sharma, Bindeshwari Paswan, Bhola Rai and others were present at the time when the Mukhiya is said to have recorded the statement of Navin Sharma. He denies that his son was in the habit of running away from his home. From the evidence of this witness, there are several important lacunas in the evidence of P.W. 3. Firstly, no cogent explanation has been given about the delay in lodging the case. According to him he returned to his village on 31.1.1989 and despite the fact that his son was missing since 25.12.1989, he did not lodge the case rather he waited for four days before giving the Fardbeyan. His evidence would also reveal that the story of a written confession by Navin Sharma, the appellant has been placed in the Court for the first time. It has not been stated in the First Information Report that Navin Sharma had made any type of written confession regarding the fact that he had gone with Pramod Sharma to see a movie at Bhagalpur. It is also for the first time that the informant has come with a story that Gurudeo had informed him regarding the occurrence. Both the informant and his wife P.W. 5 have also alleged for the first time in Court that they found some silver and cash missing from their house after Navin had left the house. It would thus appear that P.Ws. 5 and 6 are developing their case regarding the alleged kidnapping of their son. 9. One Ramdeo Prasad Sharma has been examined as P.W. 7 in order to prove Ext. 2. It may be noted that Ramdeo Prasad Sharma is a resident of Bariyarpur, District Munger and is the brother of P.W. 5, Tusa Devi. He claims that he is a chance witness to the alleged confession. According to him he learnt about the fact that his nephew was missing and thus, came to visit his sister. He alleges that the statement was recorded and he has proved the signature of Manoj who has supposedly written the document. It is obvious that this witness has been introduced in order to show the genuineness of Ext. 2, the alleged confession of the informant. 10. The Investigating Officer has been examined in this case and he has made very poor investigation. It is obvious that this witness has been introduced in order to show the genuineness of Ext. 2, the alleged confession of the informant. 10. The Investigating Officer has been examined in this case and he has made very poor investigation. He has not examined the independent witnesses who were supposedly present when Navin Sharma was making his confession. He has not bothered to examine Gurudeo Sharma who was supposedly the man who had given information regarding the alleged kidnapping to the informant during investigation. Thus, the Investigating Officer’s statement does not help the prosecution in any manner. 11. From perusal of the evidence of the seven witnesses who claim to support the involvement of the appellant in the said kidnapping of Pramod Sharma, it is apparent that they have not been able to connect the absence of Navin Sharma with Pramod Sharma. Even if, their evidence is to be believed then P.W. 1 claims to have seen the appellant along with Pramod Sharma at 11 P.M. According to the case of the prosecution and the evidence of the mother/father, it would appear that they had gone to watch a film at Bhagalpur and after the evening show was over, both of them separated at Bhagalpur station, therefore, the statement that he saw them together at 11 P.M. seems to be unbelievable. On the other hand, P.W. 2 claims to have seen them together at 9 A.M. on 25.1.1987. According to the mother the appellant came to her house in the late morning and as such the evidence of P.W. 2 has to be discarded by this Court. Similarly, the evidence of P.W. 3 that he saw them walking together on the road is vague. The date and time to saw them walking together is not revealed in the evidence. P.W. 5 has come out with the case that Navin Sharma came to the house of this witness and took her son along with him to see a picture in Bhagalpur. She began to look for her son when he did not return but could not locate him. According to her, Gurudeo was the man who informed her husband regarding the occurrence. However, he has not been examined in this case to support the said fact. Similarly, the conduct of P.W. 6, the informant is also not above board. She began to look for her son when he did not return but could not locate him. According to her, Gurudeo was the man who informed her husband regarding the occurrence. However, he has not been examined in this case to support the said fact. Similarly, the conduct of P.W. 6, the informant is also not above board. There was no occasion for him to delay the lodging of the First Information Report. The subsequent case made out that Gurudeo had informed him or that written confessional statement has been made before the Mukhiya is not clearly of much use. In view of the fact that P.W. 4, Ram Lakhan Choudhary, the Mukhiya has not stated that he had recorded any written confession of the appellant Navin Sharma. The evidence of P.W. 4, infact gives a fatal blow to the story put forth by the prosecution. 12. This Court comes to the conclusion that even if, it is accepted that Navin Sharma was last seen with Pramod Sharma, there is no further link to indicate that the appellant was responsible for kidnapping Pramod Sharma. Since a lot of emphasis have been led to Ext. 2, this Court will refer to this document which is supposedly signed by the Mukhiya. It is witnessed by two persons i.e. Janardan Prasad Rai and Lakhan Kumar Singh who have not been examined in this case. If the document is taken into consideration, it merely says that they had gone to watch a movie and after watching the movie they went their separate ways. Apparently this document has been written by Manoj Kumar. He has said that “gekjs xzke ds eqf[k;k th ds iwNrkN djus ij mijksDr pht ds ckjs esa crk fn;s ,oa mijksDr lHkh dFku lgh gSA tkrs oDr ge ?kj ls ek=k 400 #ñ ysdj x;k FkkA" 13. This document in itself cannot be read to be a confessional statement and infact he does not say a word regarding any intention on behalf of the appellant to kidnap Pramod Sharma merely says that they both wanted to watch movie together and after that they went their separate ways. This Court, therefore, concludes that this document does not any way connect the appellant with the said offence of kidnapping. 14. This Court, therefore, concludes that this document does not any way connect the appellant with the said offence of kidnapping. 14. Having discussed the evidence above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant cannot be held guilty for an offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He is also discharged from liability of his bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 15. This appeal is allowed.