Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 816 (JHR)

State Of Jharkhand v. Paysil Kisku

2018-04-10

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant State. 2. The appellant-State is aggrieved by the Judgment of Acquittal dated 20.01.2017, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Dumka, in S. T. No. 166 of 2013, whereby the accused respondents, who were facing the trial for the offences under Sections 302, 201 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted after trial, giving them the benefits of doubt. 3. Since this appeal has been filed after inordinate delay of 263 days, I.A. No. 296 of 2018 has been filed for condonation of this inordinate delay, stating that the delay had been caused due to procedure adopted in taking the approvals at the levels of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, thereafter at Law Department and ultimately, in the office of Advocate General, for filing of acquittal appeal. Another I.A. No. 295 of 2018 has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Chowkidar, who had found the dead body of an unknown lady in decomposed condition and accordingly, the case was instituted against unknown. After investigation, the police had submitted the charge-sheet against the accused respondents. 5. Ultimately, the accused respondents were put to trial, and in course of trial, altogether nineteen witnesses were examined in the case. The case was not supported by most of the witnesses. P.W.-14 Suhagni Tudu, the mother of the deceased, P.W.-15 Bijay Kumar Murmu, P.W-16 Nirmal Kumar Murmu and P.W.-17 Suraj Hansda, who were the brothers and Bhabhi respectively, of the deceased, have supported the prosecution case, but the Court below has found material discrepancies in the evidence of those witnesses also. The mother P.W.-14 Suhagni Tudu has stated that her daughter was kept by accused Paysil Kisku, but her brothers and Bhabhi have stated that she was married to accused Paysil Kisku. From the evidence of all these relative witnesses, it is apparent that they came to know about the missing of the girl on or soon after the date of the alleged occurrence itself, but they kept mum and they did not make any complaint till two months when the dead body of the deceased was found in decomposed condition. From the evidence of all these relative witnesses, it is apparent that they came to know about the missing of the girl on or soon after the date of the alleged occurrence itself, but they kept mum and they did not make any complaint till two months when the dead body of the deceased was found in decomposed condition. P.W.-17 Suraj Hansda, the Bhabhi of the deceased had also stated that accused Paysil Kisku had tried to get the pregnancy of the deceased terminated two times, but such statement was not made either by the mother or the brothers of the deceased. 6. The only evidence against the accused is the evidence of P.W.-18 Ashok Kumar, who is the I.O. of the case and he has stated that he recorded the confessional statements of accused persons and on the basis of the confessional statement of accused Naresh Hansda, one G-5 Company silver colour mobile phone was recovered, which belonged to the deceased, and on the basis of the confessional statement of accused Mintu Tudu, a yellow colour dairy was recovered, in which, the photographs of deceased and Paysil Kisku and one other girl were pasted. The recoveries of these articles were also made on the basis of confessional statement of accused Paysil Kisku. He also stated that the statement of accused Naresh Hansda was got recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate, but it was admitted by the I.O. that prior to this statement, the accused was in his custody. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that in this case, since there is recovery on the basis of the confessional statements of the accused persons, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and it is a fit case, in which, the accused persons ought to have convicted and sentenced for the offence. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that this is a fit case, in which, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned, leave be granted to file the appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal, the accused-respondents be noticed in this acquittal appeal. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant State and upon going through the record, we find that the case in hand stands only on the circumstantial evidence, as there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant State and upon going through the record, we find that the case in hand stands only on the circumstantial evidence, as there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The law is well settled that in case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be so complete, so as to point only towards the guilt of the accused and not otherwise. In the present case, we find that relationship of the deceased with the accused Paysil Kisku is quite doubtful, in view of the contradictory evidences of the mother, brothers and Bhabhi of the deceased. The mother has stated that she was kept by accused Paysil Kisku, whereas the brothers have stated that the deceased was married to accused Paysik Kisku. 9. Be that as it may, in view of the case of the prosecution that there was close proximity between the accused Paysil Kisku and the deceased, the recoveries of mobile phone and the dairy of the deceased are not of much benefit to the prosecution, in view of the fact that according to the prosecution case, the deceased was living with the accused as his wife, and as such, there was access to these articles to the accused Paysil Kisku. From the evidence of I.O., P.W.-18 Ashok Kumar, it is apparent that these materials were never put to T.I.P., and even from the evidences of the mother, brothers and Bhabhi of the deceased, it is apparent that these materials were not identified by them even in the Court, though they were made material exhibits in the Court and were available in the Court on the date of their evidence, as they were produced in the Court by P.W.-12 Ramjiwan Ram, ASI. 10. The evidence of mother P.W.-14 Suhagni Tudu shows that when the deceased went missing, the accused had come to her and asked about the deceased. Similar is the statement of P.W.-17 Suraj Hansda, the Bhabhi of the deceased, wherein, she has stated that even on the date of occurrence, she had given call on the mobile phone of the deceased, but her mobile phone was switched off, and on the next date, the accused Paysil Kisku had come to her and asked about the deceased. Similar is the statement of P.W.-17 Suraj Hansda, the Bhabhi of the deceased, wherein, she has stated that even on the date of occurrence, she had given call on the mobile phone of the deceased, but her mobile phone was switched off, and on the next date, the accused Paysil Kisku had come to her and asked about the deceased. These evidences clearly show that the family members of the deceased were well aware of the fact on or soon after the date of occurrence, the family members were aware of the fact that the deceased had gone missing, but none of them either reported the matter to the police or made any complaint anywhere, until the dead body was recovered after two months in a decomposed condition. 11. We are of the considered view that chain of circumstances, in the present case is not at all so complete, so as to point out only towards the guilt of the accused persons, and not otherwise. We find from the impugned Judgment that the Trial Court below has rightly been given the benefits of doubt to the accused respondents and acquitted them. We do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal, passed by the Trial Court below, worth interference by this Court 12. Since we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal, there is no question of granting any leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal, or for condoning the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, which was caused only due to procedural delays. Accordingly, both the interlocutory applications, seeking leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal, and for condoning the inordinate delay, stand dismissed. 13. Consequently, this acquittal appeal also stands dismissed being bereft of any merit, and hopelessly barred by limitation.