Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 354 (JHR)

Singrai Barla v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-18

D.N.UPADHYAY, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : This appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2006 and 02.02.2006 respectively, passed by the Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in connection with Sessions Case No.193 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. Case No.163 of 2003 arising out of Porahat, Bandgawn P.S. Case No. 19 of 2003 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of making payment of fine, further R.I. for six months. The appellant stood acquitted from the charge framed under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts as narrated by Pendo Swansi (wife of the deceased) in the fardbeyan recorded on 27.04.2003 at 9.00 hours at Rania Police Station is that on 18.04.2003 on Friday at about 4.00 p.m. appellant Singrai Barla, resident of village Ganjana Dadugarha, P.S. Bandgaon reached to her house and told that his buffalo is missing and he is going to search it out. Thereafter Sukhnath Swansi (husband of the informant) disclosed that his ox is also missing, so he also wants to go to search. Thereafter, husband of the informant left home for searching his ox. It is disclosed that the appellant who was having tangi in his possession also followed Sukhnath Swansi. When husband of informant did not return home, she made a search but could not succeed. After 23 days the informant found the dead body of her husband Sukhnath Swansi lying within Beljara forest but most part of the body was eaten by animal. The informant brought this fact to the notice of Munda and other villagers after which a meeting was convened. In the said meeting, appellant was also called and questioned. On being interrogated, he confessed his guilt and produced the axe allegedly used for committing murder of Sukhnath Swansi and admitted that he has killed Sukhnath Swansi. Thereafter fardbeyan of Pendo Swansi was recorded on 27.04.2003 and on the basis of said fardbeyan Rania P.S. Case No.11 of 2004 dated 27.04.2003 under Section 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Thereafter fardbeyan of Pendo Swansi was recorded on 27.04.2003 and on the basis of said fardbeyan Rania P.S. Case No.11 of 2004 dated 27.04.2003 under Section 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. During investigation it was detected that place of occurrence lies within Bandgaon Police Station and therefore, Rania P.S. Case No.11 of 2003 was transferred to Bandgaon Police Station along with the fradbeyan and the case diary and it was registered as Bandhgaon P.S. Case No.19 of 2003 dated 07.07.2003 and police officer of Bandgaon Police Station had taken charge of investigation. After due investigation, chargesheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No.193 of 2003. Charges under Section 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant were framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses and proved documents like production cum seizure list and post mortem report etc. Learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence and documents available, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. Since the prosecution has failed to substantiate the charge framed under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant stood acquitted from the charge levelled under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel Mrs. Shweta Singh, who has been appointed as amicus curiae, has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has recorded the judgment of conviction and sentence only on the basis of extra judicial confession. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in relying upon the deposition of witnesses in which they have stated that the appellant confessed his guilt and admitted that he has committed murder of Sukhnath Swansi but the confessional statement recorded by the police has not been proved. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the circumstantial evidences brought on record by the prosecution are not sufficient to prove the guilt of appellant. It is submitted that it was not a case of last seen even. It is nowhere stated that the appellant, in any manner induced or insisted the deceased to accompany him. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the circumstantial evidences brought on record by the prosecution are not sufficient to prove the guilt of appellant. It is submitted that it was not a case of last seen even. It is nowhere stated that the appellant, in any manner induced or insisted the deceased to accompany him. The deceased voluntarily had stated that he also wants to search out his missing ox and left his house. Only because the appellant also left house of the informant at the same time, that does not mean that he was following the deceased in order to commit murder. There is delay in lodging the First Information Report. The informant noticed presence of portion of dead body of Sukhnath Swansi within three days but the matter was not reported to the police rather she has chosen to inform the villagers and the Munda. At the instance of Munda a meeting was convened in which the appellant was compelled to admit the guilt. As a matter of fact, he never admitted his guilt at any point of time either before the villagers or before the police. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge framed against the appellant and therefore, he is entitled for acquittal. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the argument and submitted that the appellant has not only confessed his guilt and admitted that he has committed murder of Sukhnath Swansi but also produced the axe used for committing murder. Blood spot was present on the axe and it was sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. The death of Sukhnath was homicidal and that is apparent from the evidence of Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary PW3. There was fracture injury on parietal region and those injuries were ante mortem. The deceased left home on 18.04.2003 with the appellant and thereafter he was not seen alive. According to informant, the appellant followed him and he was having tangi in his possession. Two days thereafter, dead body of Sukhnath Swansi lying within Beljara forest was noticed and thereafter a meeting was convened in which the appellant voluntarily gave his confession and also produced the tangi. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Two days thereafter, dead body of Sukhnath Swansi lying within Beljara forest was noticed and thereafter a meeting was convened in which the appellant voluntarily gave his confession and also produced the tangi. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. After considering the evidence and documents available on record, we find that the appellant has been implicated in this case on the evidence that he followed the deceased on 18.04.2003 and he was having a tangi in his possession. It is nowhere stated by any of the witnesses, even by the informant, that the appellant in any manner compelled or insisted the deceased to accompany him. The appellant had disclosed that his buffalo is missing and he is going to search it. After knowing this fact, the deceased also told that his ox is missing and he also wants to make a search of it. The circumstance in which the appellant as well as the deceased left home could not be an incriminating circumstance rather it could be considered very natural when both of them left house of the informant in order to search their animal. There is no evidence on record as to what happened to deceased thereafter. Only the dead body of the deceased was noticed by the informant and villagers on Sunday i.e. after two days of the incident. The witnesses who had attended the meeting organised at the instance of Munda have said that the appellant before them had confessed his guilt and admitted that he has committed murder of Sukhnath Swansi but that much is not sufficient to hold a person guilty for murder. Only the oral confession made by an accused before the villagers, without being corroborated by any cogent evidence, is not sufficient to hold a person liable for the offence of murder. Needless to mention that confessional statement recorded by the police has not been proved. Therefore, it could be said that the appellant has not confessed his guilt before anyone. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. has also not been explained. This circumstance also goes against the prosecution, if the presence of dead body was noticed one week prior to the date of reporting, why the matter was not reported immediately after the dead body was detected. 6. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. has also not been explained. This circumstance also goes against the prosecution, if the presence of dead body was noticed one week prior to the date of reporting, why the matter was not reported immediately after the dead body was detected. 6. Considering all these aspects discussed above, we are not inclined to uphold the judgment of conviction and order of sentenced recorded by the trial judge and accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2006 and 02.02.2006 respectively, passed by the Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in connection with Sessions Case No. 193 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. Case No.163 of 2003 arising out of Porahat, Bandgawn P.S. Case No. 19 of 2003 is hereby set aside. Appellant Singrai Barla, who is in jail, is directed to be released forthwith from jail custody, if not wanted in any other case and for that appropriate direction may be issued, if necessary, by the convicting/successor Court. 7. In the result, this appeal stands allowed.