Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 356 (JHR)

Albert Panna v. State of Jharkhand

2015-03-10

R.R.PRASAD, RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
Judgment When the case was taken up, it was informed to us that Mr. Amit Keshri, who had earlier been appointed as Amicus Curiae, has left the practice of High Court. We appointed Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, learned counsel, as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.6.2001 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 143 of 1997, whereby and whereunder, the appellant on being found guilty for committing murder of Shanti Bara was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution, as has been projected, is that the deceased-Shanti Bara, daughter of the informant-Stiphen Bara (P.W. 13) had fallen in love with the appellant who wanted to marry her but the father of Shanti Bara was not agreeable to that proposal and, therefore, P.W. 13 got her (deceased) admitted at Holly Cross Convent Sewing Centre, Ambikapur on 16.7.1996. After a week i.e. on 24.7.1996, this appellant went there to meet Shanti Bara and introduced himself to the Hostel In-charge namely, Damyanti Ekka-P.W. 5, as cousin of Shanti Bara and hence he was allowed to stay back there at the night. In the early morning of 25.7.1996, the appellant took Shanti Bara with him, information of which, as per the evidence of P.W. 5, was immediately given to the informant-P.W. 13 (father of Shanti Bara). However, according to the informant, he came to know about that fact from Theodore Ekka when he had gone to the school to meet Shanti Bara. After some days, this appellant was seen in the village while taking meal towards the hilltop where he was suspected to have kept Shanti Bara. The other day, when the informant came across the appellant in the village, he asked about the whereabouts of his daughter upon which this appellant told him that he got his daughter (deceased) admitted in Shanti Nagar Kotam Sewing Centre, Palamau. Thereupon, the informant asked the appellant to bring Shanti Bara upon which the appellant told him that he will do so but the appellant thereafter went missing. Thereupon, the informant asked the appellant to bring Shanti Bara upon which the appellant told him that he will do so but the appellant thereafter went missing. Suspecting some foul play, the informant along with the villagers including P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 went towards the hilltop in search of Shanti Bara where they did find the skeleton in pieces and also skirt, blouse, bangles, slippers etc. which were identified as belongings of the deceased. Thereupon, the police was informed and on getting information, P.W. 14-Sahdeo Prasad Sinha, Officer In-charge of Dumri Police Station, went there and recorded the fard-beyan (Ext.2), upon which a formal FIR (Ext. 2/1) was drawn against the appellant. 4. The Officer In-charge himself took up the investigation during which he seized the pieces of skeleton and also skirt, blouse, bangles, slippers etc. as well as one 'tangi' under seizure list (Ext. 3). The skeleton was sent for chemical examination. Upon chemical examination report of the skeleton was submitted which has been marked as Ext. 5 indicating therein that the skeleton was of a female and the bone had been cut by hard and blunt substance which was ante mortem in nature. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the witnesses. 5. After completion of the investigation, when the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant, cognizance of the offence, as aforesaid, was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the appellant was put on trial. 6. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined altogether 14 witnesses. Of them, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 namely, Mikhail Bara, Claimant Ekka, Jakaria Tirkey, Hilarious Tirkey Mithail Tirkey and Nowas Minj, have testified that when they went in search of Shanti Bara along with the informant at the hilltop, they found skeleton along with skirt, blouse, bangles, slippers etc. and the same were identified as that of the deceased and the 'tangi' was identified as that of the father of the appellant. Further P.Ws. 2, 4 and 7 have testified that the deceased was residing in the hostel at Ambikapur from where this appellant brought her and when he was asked about the whereabouts of the deceased-Shanti Bara, the appellant told them that he got Shanti Bara admitted at Shanti Nagar Kotam Sewing Centre, Palamau. Further P.Ws. 2, 4 and 7 have testified that the deceased was residing in the hostel at Ambikapur from where this appellant brought her and when he was asked about the whereabouts of the deceased-Shanti Bara, the appellant told them that he got Shanti Bara admitted at Shanti Nagar Kotam Sewing Centre, Palamau. P.W. 5-Dayamanti Ekka, In-charge of Holly Cross Sewing School, Ambikapur, has testified that while the deceased was in the hostel, this appellant came over there on 24.7.1996 and introduced himself as cousin of the deceased and then he was allowed to stay at night. In the morning of 25.7.1996, he took the deceased along with him. P.W. 8-Lonju Nous has testified that he had seen the appellant along with 'tangi' taking meal towards hilltop. P.W. 9- Elija Beth Kujur (sister of the deceased) has testified that while she was taking the deceased to Ambikapur, the deceased disclosed her that she is carrying pregnancy of two months which she conceived on account of having intercourse with this appellant. 7. After closure of the prosecution case, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him to which he denied. 8. The trial court on the basis of the evidences brought on record did find the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, which is under challenge. 9. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, learned counsel, submits that there has been absolutely no evidence to the effect that this appellant has committed murder of the deceased, rather the evidences, which have come, do establish that the appellant was in love with the deceased and wanted to marry her but the parents of the deceased were not agreeable to this proposal. In spite of that, the appellant was bent upon to marry the deceased-Shanti Bara and, therefore, it is quite possible that the family members of the deceased may have killed the deceased and falsely implicated this appellant but the trial court did not consider this aspect of the matter and recorded the order of conviction and sentence in absence of any evidence that it was the appellant who had killed the deceased and thereby the order of conviction and sentence is fit to be set aside. 10. As against this, Mr. 10. As against this, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the State, submits that the circumstances are as such which go to establish that it was the appellant and none other who has committed murder of the deceased. 11. In this regard, it was submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant went to the hostel where the deceased was living and then brought her with him towards the hilltop and then committed her murder and, therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant and thus the judgment of conviction and order of sentence never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, we do find that it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was in love with the deceased and wanted to marry her but the father of the deceased-P.W. 13 was not agreeable to that proposal and, therefore, he got his daughter (deceased) admitted at Holly Cross Convent Sewing Centre, Ambikapur on 16.7.1996 where this appellant went on 24.7.1996 and introduced himself to P.W. 5 as cousin of deceased-Shanti Bara and then he was allowed to stay back there at night. In the next morning i.e. on 25.7.1996, the appellant left that place along with the deceased-Shanti Bara. This fact gets established from the evidences of P.W. 5-Dayamanti Ekka, Hostel In-charge of Holly Cross Convent Sewing Centre, Ambikapur, as nothing has been elicited by the defence in the cross-examination to discredit her testimony. 13. Further, we do find that when the appellant came to the village, he was seen occasionally taking meal towards the hilltop. When the informant-P.W. 13 came across with the appellant, the informant asked him about the whereabouts of his daughter-Shanti Bara upon which this appellant disclosed to P.W. 13 and also to P.Ws. 2 and 4 that he got Shanti Bara admitted in Shanti Nagar Kotam Sewing Centre, Palamau but when he was asked to bring Shanti Bara, the appellant went missing. Thereupon, when the witnesses, mentioned above, went towards the hilltop in search of Shanti Bara, they did find skeleton in pieces and also skirt, blouse, bangles, slippers etc. 2 and 4 that he got Shanti Bara admitted in Shanti Nagar Kotam Sewing Centre, Palamau but when he was asked to bring Shanti Bara, the appellant went missing. Thereupon, when the witnesses, mentioned above, went towards the hilltop in search of Shanti Bara, they did find skeleton in pieces and also skirt, blouse, bangles, slippers etc. Thus, the prosecution seems to have been able to establish two circumstances; (i) the appellant took the deceased with him from the hostel of Holly Cross Convent Sewing Centre, Ambikapur; and (ii) the appellant on being asked about the whereabouts of Shanti Bara did disclose that she had been admitted in Shanti Nagar Kotam Sewing Centre, Palamau but the question does arise as to whether these two circumstances are enough to establish that it was the appellant who did commit murder of the deceased? 14. We have also noticed that the appellant was in love with the deceased and the extent of love was so intense that when the girl was admitted to the hostel at Holly Cross Convent Sewing Centre, Ambikapur, this appellant within a week went there to meet the deceased and also stayed at night and then took her away from there. Thereupon, he came to village and was seen in the village taking tiffin-box towards the hilltop probably for the deceased which certainly goes to suggest that the appellant was in love with the deceased. In that event, one would hardly believe that the appellant would commit murder of the deceased. The prosecution tried to project its case that the deceased was carrying pregnancy, which the appellant wanted to get terminated, but the deceased was not agreeing for it and, therefore, he committed murder. 15. The prosecution though has projected such case but has failed to establish it. In this regard, it be noted that P.W. 13 has testified that he was told by one Madhuri Ma that the appellant wanted the pregnancy, which the deceased was carrying, terminated but Madhuri Ma has not been examined by the prosecution and thereby the said fact can be said to be non-existence. Under the circumstances, even if those two circumstances are appearing against the appellant, the same never complete the chain so as to come to the conclusion that it could be only the appellant who has committed murder. Under the circumstances, the appellant deserves the benefit of doubts. 16. Under the circumstances, even if those two circumstances are appearing against the appellant, the same never complete the chain so as to come to the conclusion that it could be only the appellant who has committed murder. Under the circumstances, the appellant deserves the benefit of doubts. 16. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him and is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 17. In the result, this appeal stands allowed.