Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 86 (PAT)

Pramod Kumar v. State of Bihar

2014-01-20

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

body2014
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.525 of 2011 wherein Pramod Kumar happens to be the sole appellant, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 278 of 2011 wherein in Jaywanti Devi happens to be sole appellant and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 480 of 2011 wherein Tanik Singh happens to be the sole appellant commonly originate against the judgment dated 23.02.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008 / 2 of 2011 as well as 424 of 2009/ 6 of 2011 convicting the appellant named above for an offence punishable under Section 498(A), 304(B)/34 IPC, 201 IPC and sentence dated 24.02.2011 whereby and whereunder appellant Tanik Singh and Jaywanti Devi each have been sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 years under Section 498(A) IPC, R.I. for 7 years under Section 304(B)/34 IPC, R.I. for two years as well as also fined Rs.10,000/- in default thereof to undergo sentence of six month additionally, appellant Pramod Kumar sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Section 304(B) IPC, R.I. for two years as well as also fined Rs.10,000/- in default thereof to undergo imprisonment of six months additionally under Section 201 of the IPC. With a further direction to run the sentences concurrently by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Vth, Sheikhpura, accordingly been heard analogously and are being disposed of by common judgment. 2. Informant Awadhesh Kumar filed written report disclosing therein that his younger sister Anita Devi was married with Pramod Kumar on 26-04-1999 and accordingly, she had gone to her Sasural. After spenting five days at her Sasural, his sister Anita Devi returned back to his place and then thereafter, her Duragman was effected in the year 2002. At the time of Duragman Pramod Kumar had advanced demand of a Rajdoot motorcycle as well as Rs.50,000/- which was beyond their means and on account thereof, her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, husband began to torture. After coming to know about the same they have gone to her Sasural and shown their inability to fulfill their demand as well as to take pity thereupon which was ignored by them. Subsequently, they were informed by one Ram Padarath Singh, father-in-law of his younger brother Shankar Singh with regard to commission of murder of Anita Devi in the night of 02-03-2004 and disposing of the dead body whereupon they came and found the allegation true. 3. Subsequently, they were informed by one Ram Padarath Singh, father-in-law of his younger brother Shankar Singh with regard to commission of murder of Anita Devi in the night of 02-03-2004 and disposing of the dead body whereupon they came and found the allegation true. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report Ariari P.S.Case No.31 of 2004 was registered under Section 498(A), 304(B), 34 of the IPC whereupon investigation commenced. At first stage charge sheet was submitted against appellant Tanik Singh, Jaywanti Devi keeping continuance of investigation against others. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet cognizance was taken and accordingly Tanik Singh and Jaywanti Devi were committed for trial whereupon Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008, 2 of 2011 was registered. Subsequently thereof, supplementary charge sheet was submitted against Pramod Kumar who accordingly was put on trial under Sessions Trial No.424 of 2009, 6 of 2011. 4. It is evident from the lower court record of both the cases that in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008/ 2 of 2011 altogether fourteen PWs have been examined as well as Ext.-1 – Signature of informant over fardbeyan, Ext.2 to 2/D–Letters script by deceased Anita Devi were made an exhibit while in Sessions Trial No.424 of 2009/ 6 of 2011 only six PWs have been examined while four exhibits, Ext.-1–Signature of informant over fardbeyan, Ext-2 to 2/D–Letters written by Anita Devi, Ext-3–Deposition of part I.O. examined as PW-11 in Sessions Trial no.98 of 2008, Ext.-3/A – C.C. of deposition of part I.O. PW-14 examined in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008 have been examined. It is also apparent that Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008 five DWs have been examined while in Sessions Trial No.424 of 2009 seven DWs have been examined along with an Ext-A on behalf of defence. It is also evident from the lower court record that in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008 the charge happens to be with regard to offence committed at village-Najardih, P.S.-Nawada, District-Nawada while in Sessions Trial No.424 of 2009 the charge has been framed for the offence committed in between village-Barsa, P.S.-Ariari, District-Sheikhpura, as well as Najardih, P.S.-Nawada, District-Nawada. 5. It is also evident from the lower court record that in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008 the charge happens to be with regard to offence committed at village-Najardih, P.S.-Nawada, District-Nawada while in Sessions Trial No.424 of 2009 the charge has been framed for the offence committed in between village-Barsa, P.S.-Ariari, District-Sheikhpura, as well as Najardih, P.S.-Nawada, District-Nawada. 5. When the judgment impugned has been gone through, it is evident that the learned lower court instead of delivering two independent judgment in two independent conducted sessions trial as referred above, disposed of both the sessions trial by the common judgment impugned wherein the learned trial court had dealt with the evidences of the PWs examined in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008 only. It is also evident from the judgment impugned that the learned trial court had not considered the legality of Ext.-2 to 2/D, Ext.-3, 3/A of Sessions Trial No.424 of 2009 in the background of the fact that the aforesaid exhibits were inadmissible with regard to Pramod Kumar on account of having not availed an opportunity to cross-examine. Furthermore, the judgment impugned speaks that it has been delivered in ustulate manner without discussing and dealing with the evidences independently so examined in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008 as well as Sessions Trial No.424 of 2009 respectively. 6. On account thereof, the judgment impugned did not justify its viability. Consequent thereupon, is set aside. Appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned lower court to hear both the Sessions Trial separately as well as independently and will dispose of the same by two independent judgment on the same day relating to concern sessions trial. Bail bond of Jaywanti Devi and Tanik Singh the appellants are accordingly cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the learned trial court within four weeks from the date of receipt / production of judgment impugned with a prayer of bail which the learned lower court will favorably consider, failing which the trial court will be at liberty to procure their attendance through legal process so prescribed. While, appellant Pramod Kumar happens to be under custody whose presence will be procured through custody warrant.