Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 243 (JHR)

Patiram Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-02

D.N.UPADHYAY, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : By Court These Cr. Appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th March, 2004 passed by the Addl. Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C.-IX, Ranchi in connection with Sessions Trial No.08/2001, corresponding to G.R.No.85/2000 arising out of Silli P.S. Case No.07/2000 whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for 7 years under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences so passed shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant happens to be the father of the deceased-Niyati Mandal. He had given his fardbayan on 14.01.2000 disclosing the fact that his daughter Niyati Mandal was married with appellant-Patiram Mandal and she has been blessed with a female child. The marriage between Niyati Mandal and appellant-Patiram Mandal was solemnized about 7-8 years prior to the date of occurrence. Gopal Mandal informed that Niyati Mandal and her daughter have been killed by the appellants and after killing them, they have thrown the dead body into the well of Vijan Singh Munda. It was further disclosed that again dead bodies of Niyati and her daughter were taken out from the well and it were cremated at a place near Suwarn Rekha river bank. Fardbayan of Ghasiram Mandal was recorded on 14.01.2000 at 14:20 hours and a case being Ranchi (Sadar) Silli P.S. Case No. 07/2000 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against all the appellants. The date of occurrence assigned by the informant is 01.01.2000. The second date of occurrence on which date the dead bodies were cremated was 04.01.2000. The investigation was carried out and all the four appellants were charge-sheeted, accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as S.T.No.08/2001. Charges against the appellants under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed and the charges so framed were explained to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined altogether 09 witnesses and the learned Addl. Charges against the appellants under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed and the charges so framed were explained to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined altogether 09 witnesses and the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner placing reliance on the evidence available on record held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as indicated above. 4. Counsel appearing for the appellants have submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside because the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner has recorded the conviction only on sentiment. The findings of the Trial Court are beyond the evidence available on record. According to the informant (P.W. 1), deceased Niyati Mandal and her baby were killed on 01.01.2000 and after murder the dead bodies were thrown into a well belonging to Vijan Singh Munda. The informant further says that on 01.01.2000 the dead bodies were taken out from the well and it were cremated at a place near Suwarn Rekha river bank. Six days after the alleged incident, one Gopal Mandal (P.W. 9) had given information to Ghasiram Mandal (father of the deceased). The informant then went to village Kutam within P.S. Muri to verify the information regarding the death of Niyati and her baby. After making enquiry, he could learn from the villagers that appellant-Patiram Mandal with the help of his relatives (appellants) had committed murder of Niyati and her baby and then disposed of the dead bodies with an intention of screening themselves from legal punishment. P.W. 1 is not an eye-witness. The hearsay evidence brought on record stood uncorroborated. Even Gopal Mandal (P.W.9) did not support the prosecution case The dead bodies of Niyati and her baby have not been recovered rather few pieces of bones have been seized but no report from F.S.L. is available on record, the prosecution has failed to bring it on record that bones collected by the Investigating Officer were actually the bones of the deceased, no D.N.A. test has been done, no cause of death has been assigned by the Doctor (P.W.7). It is submitted that it is a case of no evidence but the appellants have been compelled to face consequences and hardship of the trial. It is submitted that it is a case of no evidence but the appellants have been compelled to face consequences and hardship of the trial. The appellant-Patiram Mandal is languishing in jail for more than twelve years. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the argument. 6. We have carefully gone through the case record and the evidence available before us. We feel it necessary to observe that sentiment has no place in deciding the case relating to offence committed within the family, particularly when the victim and the accused both are family members. What happened to Niyati Mandal and her baby is not very clear from the evidence available on record. They may have disappeared but the evidence on record did not indicate that they were murdered and for that these appellants are responsible. The informant happens to be unfortunate father of Niyati. He is a hearsay witness and he had not witnessed the occurrence. The information regarding death of Niyati and her baby derived to him from Gopal Mandal but Gopal Mandal (P.W.9) did not support this fact in his deposition in Court. He has turned hostile. In the same manner P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 also turned hostile. Bansh Narayan Singh (P.W.6) and Jitendra Kumar Singh (P.W.8) are the Investigating Officers and we feel no hesitation to observe that they had not discharged their obligation properly and they did not investigate into the matter sincerely to find out the truth. The investigation was done in a leisurely manner and aforesaid two Investigating Officers have failed to find out the truth behind disappearance of Niyati and her baby. Dr. Tulsi Mahto (P.W.7) happens to be a formal witness. The bones and articles allegedly belonging to the deceased were collected by the Investigating Officer and it were sent to Dr. Tulsi Mahato for its examination. The Doctor has returned those articles with a note “those articles are required to be sent to F.S.L. for its examination” but it is unknown whether it was done or not ? We do not find that the prosecution has adduced either circumstantial or direct evidence to bring home the charges framed against the appellants. 7. In the result, we are inclined to allow these appeals filed by the appellants and accordingly the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th March, 2004 passed by the Addl. We do not find that the prosecution has adduced either circumstantial or direct evidence to bring home the charges framed against the appellants. 7. In the result, we are inclined to allow these appeals filed by the appellants and accordingly the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th March, 2004 passed by the Addl. Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C.-IX, Ranchi in connection with S.T.No.08/2001 is hereby set aside. 8. Appellants, namely, Ram Kumar Mandal (in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.591/2004), Fagu Mandal & Uma Charan Mandal (in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.704/2004), who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds and set at liberty. 9. The appellant no.1 Patiram Mandal (in Cr. (Jail) Appeal No.1592/2004), who is in custody, is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case and for that the Convicting/Successor Court shall issue appropriate direction, if needed.