Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1180 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Amin Manjhi

2015-09-10

JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA, V.N.SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT : V.N. SINHA, J. 1. Instant Death Reference, Cr. Appeal arise out of judgment of conviction, order of sentence dated 05/12.12.2014 passed by 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda in Sessions Case No. 167/10/Trial Register No. 53/14, whereunder out of the two accused put on trial Accused No. 1 has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 364, 302 of the Penal Code, sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life with further direction to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer six months Rigorous Imprisonment, Capital Punishment with further direction to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for six months. Accused No. 2 has, however, been acquitted of the charges levelled against her after giving benefit of doubt. 2. Prosecution case, as set out in the fardbeyan of Ravindra Ravidas, son of Bindeshwar Ravidas, resident of Village-Bisai Bigaha, Police Station Aungari, District-Nalanda, recorded by Sub Inspector Akshay Lal of Aungari Police Station on 20.10.2009 at 2:30 P.M. at Village Bisai Bigaha is that on 19.10.2009 i.e. Monday around 8:00 A.M. he had gone outside the village for working as a labourer and returned around 11:00 A.M. found his son Indrajeet Ravidas, aged about 2 years, missing from the house. Informant went in search of his son, was informed by his co-villagers as also villagers of the adjoining village that his son was seen being taken away by Amin Manjhi, son of Kashi Manjhi and his mother Shanti Devi, wife of Late Kashi Manjhi, both resident of Bisai Bigaha within Aungari Police Station. Informant further states that on further probe it transpired that his son has been sold by Amin Manjhi, Shanti Devi to Contractor Awadh Baba Chauhan, resident of Kasturi Bigaha, Guddu Kumar, brick-kiln owner, resident of Village- Banaur within Islampur Police Station for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as the child was required for the purpose of sacrifice in the newly established brick-kiln. In the fardbeyan informant further disclosed that he is fully sure that his son Indrajeet has been sold to brick-kiln contractor, owner Awadh Baba Chauhan, Guddu Kumar for the purpose of sacrifice by Shanti Devi, Amin Manjhi. 3. After having gone through the statement informant put his Left Thumb Impression over the fardbeyan in presence of Akhilesh Ravidas who also put his signature over the fardbeyan. 3. After having gone through the statement informant put his Left Thumb Impression over the fardbeyan in presence of Akhilesh Ravidas who also put his signature over the fardbeyan. In the light of the fardbeyan Investigating Officer of the case arrested Amin Manjhi on 20.10.2009 at 3:15 P.M., thereafter registered Aungari P.S. Case No. 42/09 dated 20.10.2009 at 6:15 P.M for the offence under Section 364/34 of the Penal Code. Investigating Officer received information about recovery of the dead body of Indrajeet Ravidas while he was proceeding from Village Banaur to Bisai Bigaha on 21.10.2009 at 6:00 A.M. In the light of the information about recovery of the dead body Investigating Officer reached Bisai Bigaha at 6:30 A.M. recovered the dead body of Indrajeet Ravidas from a place near a well situate in front of the house of Birendra Ravidas. Inquest Report has also been made in presence of Santosh Kumar, Akhilesh Ravidas. The dead body of Indrajeet Ravidas was dispatched for post mortem to Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif, Nalanda which was received in the hospital on 21.10.2009 at 11:40 A.M. post mortem also conducted on the same day. The autopsy surgeon found in his report dated 21.10.2009 that the boy was done to death by means of strangulation causing asphyxia, suffocation. Time elapsed since death is between 36-72 hours. In the light of the fardbeyan, police statement of the witnesses as also the Inquest Report and the Post Mortem Report, Investigating Officer having found the case true submitted charge-sheet on the basis of which cognizance was taken. After supply of police papers case was committed to the court of Sessions. Sessions Court transferred the case to the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-2 who framed charge under order dated 29.03.2010 to which both the accused persons pleaded not guilty, claimed to be tried. 4. In support of the charge prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. P.W.1 Ram Pravesh Ravidas is the uncle of the informant, appears to be a hearsay witness as he has deposed that he came to learn about disappearance of Indrajeet Ravidas. P.W.2 Akshay Lal at the relevant time served as Officer-in-Charge of Aungari Police Station, is the scribe of the fardbeyan as also the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W.3 Santosh Kumar is a co-villager and witness of inquest. P.W.4 Gangajali Devi is the mother of the informant, is also a hear-say witness. P.W.2 Akshay Lal at the relevant time served as Officer-in-Charge of Aungari Police Station, is the scribe of the fardbeyan as also the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W.3 Santosh Kumar is a co-villager and witness of inquest. P.W.4 Gangajali Devi is the mother of the informant, is also a hear-say witness. She has also heard about the disappearance of her grand-son. P.W.5 Manju Devi is mother of the deceased, is also a hearsay witness as she has also heard about disappearance of her son. P.W.6 Akhilesh Kumar (Ravidas) is the attesting witness of the fardbeyan as also witness of inquest. P.W.7 Ravindra Ravidas is the informant of the case. P.W.8 Dr. Krishna Kumar Mani at the relevant time was Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif, conducted post mortem on the dead body of Indrajeet Ravidas. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the conviction of Accused No. 1 Amin Manjhi and submitted that Reference is required to be answered in negative as prosecution witnesses have miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against him. It is submitted that neither the informant nor the attesting witness of the fardbeyan i.e. P.Ws. 7, 6 has seen the appellant taking away Indrajeet Ravidas, strangulating him. It is submitted that the evidence of P.W.6, as deposed in court, where he has asserted that he saw the appellant going with the child Indrajeet Ravidas on the fateful day cannot be believed as if he had seen the appellant going with the child, there was no reason for him not to disclose such fact to the informant and the scribe of the fardbeyan when the same was being recorded on 20.10.2009 at 2:30 P.M. in Village- Bisai Bigaha in presence of P.W.6 who was required to have informed the informant and the scribe about the fact that he had seen the appellant on the previous day i.e. 19.10.2009 taking away the child. There is no evidence on record to connect the appellant with the disappearance of Indrajeet Ravidas, he cannot be held to be the person attributed with the charge of killing Indrajeet Ravidas by strangulating him. It is submitted that appellant was arrested on 20.10.2009 at 3:15 P.M. soon after the fardbeyan was recorded in the village from the village itself as villagers had detained the appellant from before on the pretext that it was the appellant who had kidnapped the child. It is submitted that appellant was arrested on 20.10.2009 at 3:15 P.M. soon after the fardbeyan was recorded in the village from the village itself as villagers had detained the appellant from before on the pretext that it was the appellant who had kidnapped the child. It is submitted that none had seen the appellant forcibly removing the child. 6. The dead body of Indrajeet Ravidas having been recovered from a place near the well in front of the house of Birendra Ravidas in Village Bisai Bigaha, as has been stated by the Investigating Officer (P.W.2) in Paragraph 8 of his evidence, appellant, in our opinion, cannot be connected with the disappearance of Indrajeet Ravidas and recovery of his dead body as appellant has no connection at all with Birendra Ravidas near whose well the dead body was recovered. There is no reliable evidence on record from which we can conclude that it was the appellant who removed Indrajeet Ravidas from his house on the date of occurrence in between 8:00-11:00 A.M. and his dead body recovered from another village on 21.10.2009, there is no material at all with which we can associate the appellant with either removal of Indrajeet Ravidas from his native village or his strangulation or the recovery of his dead body. 7. In the result, the Reference is answered in negative, appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of conviction, order of sentence is set aside. Appellant is in jail custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.