Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1158 (PAT)

Kulbansh Ram @ Kulbansh Paswan v. State of Bihar

2014-11-21

JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA, NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2014
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) These two appeals by the five appellants have been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.7.1992 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 1985 by which all the five appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and for an offence punishable under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and for five years respectively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellants pointing out that, as apparent from the records of the case itself, all the appellants, with the exception of appellant Nirmal Kumar @ Nirmal Ram, were undisputedly minor i.e. less than 18 years of age when they were said to have committed the offence on 11.1.1982. In accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended, the proceeding being pending, they would get the benefit and are not liable to be sentenced even if found guilty at the appellate stage. Be that as it may, we do not consider it necessary to delve into this issue for we are of the considered view that both these appeals are, on the facts, required to be allowed and the conviction set aside. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the story of last seen but as we would show the prosecution has failed to convince us the fundamental principle for invocation of this theory. The prosecution case is based upon the first information report as given by one Uma Shankar Singh (PW 5) recorded on 12.1.1982 at about 9.00 pm by the Officer Incharge, Sasaram Muffasil Police Station. It is inter-alia alleged in the fard-beyan which is Ext. 1 that on 11.1.1982 the younger brother of the informant Uma Shankar Singh (PW 5) being Surendra Singh after having dinner went out of the house when the mother Tulsi Devi (PW 3) inquired, he stated that he would come back shortly. He did not return in the night. In the morning, the informant and other family members became worried and started searching at different places. He did not return in the night. In the morning, the informant and other family members became worried and started searching at different places. In the afternoon, at about 4.00 pm, one Babban Ram who was the village Chowkidar (not examined) and Bansidar Singh (PW 8) informed him that in the guava orchard of Babban Ram there were some blood stains and one knife and one Barbar’s knife. They all went there and they started looking at all places there and nearby. They came to a well which is referred to as Dalmiya well. They found a sack floating which was then taken out and from which was recovered allegedly the chappal and sheet of cloth which Surendra Singh was using to cover himself when he left the house. Accordingly, he suspected that someone had killed his brother and tried to conceal the body. He had accordingly, come and given this information at the Police Station in the night. It is pertinent to note here that in the FIR specifically it was stated by the informant that he did not suspect anybody nor was he aware of any enmity between his younger brother and any person which could have led to such a murder. This FIR having been registered, in the morning, from the well a decomposed body was taken out which was identified as the body of Surendra Singh. It shows signs of multiple injuries including the neck having been virtually severed. Inquest report was prepared, body was sent for post mortem and investigation was taken up. After investigation the Police submitted chargesheet against the appellants Albela Ram and Gurucharan Ram. Upon cognizance being taken, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. On 2nd March, 1990 the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, before whom the case was pending trial, framed the charges against the said two appellants under Section 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial, thereafter, started and PW 1 Raj Bansh Singh the father of the deceased being the father of the informant as well was examined. In his examination-in-chief, he named the two accused persons and three others i.e. Kulbansh Ram @ Paswan, Nirmal Kumar @ Nirmal Ram, Subhash Kumar @ Santosh Ram as the parties to the crime along with two accused persons. In his examination-in-chief, he named the two accused persons and three others i.e. Kulbansh Ram @ Paswan, Nirmal Kumar @ Nirmal Ram, Subhash Kumar @ Santosh Ram as the parties to the crime along with two accused persons. Upon this statement being recorded on 9th April, 1990, the court summoned the three remaining accused persons under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and arrayed them as accused. Accordingly, on 5th December, 1990 charges were framed again against all the five accused, who are now appellants, under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They all pleaded innocence. They have been tried and convicted, hence the appeal. 4. Now, the prosecution has examined in all 9 persons to establish its case. PW 1 Rajbansh Singh was then brought for examination afresh. This witness is an important witness. He is the father of the deceased and father of the informant living in the same house and he professed that he was present at the time and date of occurrence. He states that in the night of 11.1.1982 when he was returning from his agriculture land, he found his son Surendra Singh in the company of the five appellants on the road. He inquired from his son to which the son replied that he was going to the ‘Gurh’ (gagary) manufacturing unit of appellant Albela to have ‘Gurh’ and would return soon. He came home and gave this information to his sons including the informant. He further deposes that when in the next morning, his son did not return, they got worried. They went to the house of appellant Albela but did not find him there. Similarly, they went to the house of the appellants but could know about the whereabouts of his son. They, then, suspected that he had been killed. He then states that he came to know that Albela has discovered recently that Surendra Singh was having illicit relationship with Albela’s sister and it is for this the appellants joined and killed Surendra Singh. In the cross-examination this witness is questioned as to why if these facts were known were not mention in the FIR. All he says is that he had told the family members and he had disclosed it to the police as well when it had come to take his statement. In the cross-examination this witness is questioned as to why if these facts were known were not mention in the FIR. All he says is that he had told the family members and he had disclosed it to the police as well when it had come to take his statement. He was given specific suggestion that he was in fact not in the village which he denies. To a suggestion he agreed that in the neighbouring village there was one person, a notorious criminal, Mohan Bind who had been attacking and killing members of Rajput community at different places. Obviously, this suggestion was that as no one had seen the killing, it could be that Mohan Bind would have killed him. 5. PW 2 was then examined. He happens to be another elder brother of the deceased. He now apparently improves the story a bit further. He states that when he was studying with Surendra Singh, the younger brother and was on the terrace, Gurucharan and Albela came and called him. The deceased said that he would have his dinner and come. He had his dinner and all the five appellants came, he went with them. This witness states that the deceased Surendra Singh and Albela had been together since school and they were good friends but he had come to know later that his brother had developed illicit relationship with the sister of Albela and that is why Albela and others have killed him. He states that the fact that the appellants had come to call the deceased in the night, he had disclosed to his brother the informant. Again suggestion is made that no one had seen the occurrence and the allegations are speculative and false which is denied. 6. We then have another important witness PW 3, Tulsi Devi, the mother of the deceased and the mother of the informant. She, further improved the story. As noticed earlier in the fard-beyan, it is clearly mentioned that when the deceased after having dinner was going out of the house, mother had inquired and he replied that he would be come back soon. Nothing more is said. Now this witness, PW 3 the mother, comes to the court and states that in the night first Albela and Gurucharan came and asked the deceased to come with them to have some ‘Gurh’. Nothing more is said. Now this witness, PW 3 the mother, comes to the court and states that in the night first Albela and Gurucharan came and asked the deceased to come with them to have some ‘Gurh’. The deceased then hurriedly had his dinner and then the rest of the appellants came and all went together. She then states that in the night her husband (PW 1) disclosed to her that he had seen Albela and other appellants with the deceased on the road side in the night. She had disclosed all these facts to the informant Uma Shankar Singh. She admits that her statement was recorded by the Police. We then have PW 4, another brother of the deceased who makes a further improvement in the story. He now takes the name of Vijay Singh in examination-in-chief, not brought before the court, who had disclosed to this witness that Surendra Singh was having illicit relationship with the sister of Albela and had written letters to the sister, which letters Albela got hold of and it is because of that he had been killed. He admits that Vijay is alive but he is unable to produce either Vijay or letters in the court. 7. Now, we come to the informant (PW 5) Uma Shankar Singh. He virtually gives a go-bye to the fard-beyan and starts by stating that in the night itself his brother Narendra Singh (PW 2) and his mother (PW 3) had told him that the deceased had been called and taken away by the five appellants on the pretext of having ‘Gurh’ and later he was killed. He admits that all this he had not stated in the FIR. He then states that his deceased younger brother apparently was having illicit relationship with the sister of Albela and had been writing letters to her which became known to Albela only recently and therefore, he along with other appellants killed him. He then gives description of how they went searching in the orchard of Baban Ram the grandfather of Albela and how they found knife and other articles and thereafter, they were led to the well, where those articles were seized and inquest was prepared. In his cross-examination, he admits that after reading the FIR and finding it to be correct, he had duly signed it. In his cross-examination, he admits that after reading the FIR and finding it to be correct, he had duly signed it. All he states is that he knew the fact that the appellants had come and taken away his brother but he did not mention it in the FIR because he was scared. He was also given a suggestion and he accepts that one Mohan Bind has indiscriminately killing persons of Rajput caste in and around the village. 8. We then, have the doctor and then we have two witnesses who had signed the inquest report including PW 8 Bansidhar Singh who had gone with the informant to the orchard and was present when the knife and other articles were seized and he was also present when the body was taken out from the well. He states that Uma Shankar Singh, the informant, had told him that appellants had come and taken him for eating Gurh. He had not returned since then. PW 9 is an Advocate Clerk who has proved several paragraphs of the case diary. We would like to comment here that this is totally impermissible under Section 172 (2) Cr.P.C.. The statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot, in any circumstances, be used as evidence. How court permitted the case diary to be exhibited is not known. This is contrary to the prohibition as contained in Section 172 (2) of the Cr.P.C. 9. This is all the evidence. The Investigating Officer has not been examined and there is no explanation except that he has retired. The prosecution does not make any attempt to trace him out because even after retirement surely he was in receipt of pension and that being so, surely his whereabouts could have been ascertained, where he is having been paid but no efforts were made and to get over the problem the court permitted the case diary to be exhibited and marked as Ext. 5. 10. Be that as it may, this is the only evidence against the appellants. No one has seen the killing. The dead body is recovered from the well one and half days after the disappearance of Surendra Singh the deceased. 11. Shri Alamdar Hussain, the learned counsel for the appellants submits firstly that the fard-beyan gives the first version and the first impression of the case. No one has seen the killing. The dead body is recovered from the well one and half days after the disappearance of Surendra Singh the deceased. 11. Shri Alamdar Hussain, the learned counsel for the appellants submits firstly that the fard-beyan gives the first version and the first impression of the case. The informant PW 5 clearly had talked to the mother of the deceased before. Therefore, in the FIR he alleged that mother inquired from Surendar Singh to where he was going out in the winter night. He had only disclosed that he would come back soon. There is no whisper with regard to the appellants. There is no mention as is the evidence, now in the court, of the father (PW 1) that he had seen all of them on the road side in the night which fact he told everybody in the house but is conspicuously missing in the fard-beyan. Then further improved by one of the brothers, namely, Narendra Singh (PW 2) that Gurucharan and Albela had come and asked Surendra to come with them. This is again not mentioned in the fard-beyan nor is it mentioned that the mother PW 3 had seen the five appellants who had come to take the deceased with them in the night for having ‘gurh’. Now all these witnesses were knowing these facts and had been disclosing it to each other, then why the whole of the next day they made no attempt to find the five appellants and report the matter accordingly to the Police. This is not explained. Even while lodging the first information report, there was no mention of all these facts including the fact that their brother was having illicit relation and that he was writing letters to the sister of Albela which has been discovered, that is why Albela now wanted to kill the informant’s brother. 12. Having seen the evidence in detail, in our view, the prosecution has tired to improve the case step by step from no suspicion in the fard-beyan to seeing the five appellants on road by the first witness then seeing the five appellants by the second witness then coming to know the illicit relationship by the next witness and then having been disclosed about the letters in course of illicit relationship by the next witness. This systematic improvement of the story leads us to disbelieve the entire evidence. This systematic improvement of the story leads us to disbelieve the entire evidence. If all these facts were known before the FIR was lodged, then why were these missing from the FIR and that story was built up step by step. Thus, we have no option but to hold that the very fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants does not stand established. That being there, we have no option but to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and the appellants are freed from their bail bonds. Appeals allowed.