Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1262 (JHR)

Subodh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2023-10-16

AMBUJ NATH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.03.1999 passed by Sri Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda (as His Lordship was the then) in connection with Sessions Case No. 90 of 1997/ 215 of 1998, arising out of Mahagama P.S. Case No. 8 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. No. 82 of 1997, holding the appellant, Subodh Kumar Singh guilty of the offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the informant Asha Kumari, the sister of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy, alleging therein that on 02.02.1997 at about 2:10 P.M, her brother had gone to buy groceries. Thereafter, he did not return. Suspicion was raised against the present appellant that he had kidnapped the brother of the informant with an intention for committing his murder. 4. The present case was initially instituted under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a well outside Urga Nagar Colony. Accordingly, the case was converted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance, Sri Alok Kumar Sen Gupta, learned S.D.J.M, Godda committed this case to the Court of Sessions as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. 7. Rukmani Devi PW-1 is the mother of the deceased. She has supported the prosecution case. 8. Raghunath Goswamy PW-2 is the father of the deceased. He has also supported the prosecution case. 9. Asha Kumari PW-3 is the informant of the case. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. 7. Rukmani Devi PW-1 is the mother of the deceased. She has supported the prosecution case. 8. Raghunath Goswamy PW-2 is the father of the deceased. He has also supported the prosecution case. 9. Asha Kumari PW-3 is the informant of the case. She has supported the case as made out in the written report. She has proved the written report which is Exhibit-1. She has proved the application submitted by her to the D.C. Godda dated 11.3.1997 which is Exhibit-2. She has proved her signature on her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is Exhibit-3. 10. Vijay Kr. Chauhan PW-4 and Vinod Kumar Sonuwal PW-5 are the hostile witnesses. 11. Dr. Ashok Kumar PW-6 and Dr. Manto Kumar Tekriwal PW-7 had performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy. Dr. Ashok Kumar PW-6 has proved the postmortem report which is Exhibit-4. 12. R.B. Nanhe PW-8 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has proved the inquest report which is Exhibit-7. 13. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication. 14. On the basis of the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge, Godda held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. None of the witnesses have stated that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. It was further submitted that the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of suspicion. On these grounds, it was prayed that appellant may be acquitted of the charge. 16. Learned Spl.P.P has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt for committing murder of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy. Accordingly, it was prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 17. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to come to the aforesaid findings, it has to be determined: (i) Whether the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy had died homicidal death? (ii) Whether the appellant had abducted and caused homicidal death of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy? 18. In order to come to the aforesaid findings, it has to be determined: (i) Whether the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy had died homicidal death? (ii) Whether the appellant had abducted and caused homicidal death of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy? 18. R.B. Nanhe PW-8 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that on 07.02.1997, the dead body of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy was recovered. He prepared the inquest report, which is Exhibit-7. 19. From perusal of the inquest report, it transpires that there was swelling on the neck of the deceased and there was abrasion on his arm. 20. Dr. Ashok Kumar PW-6 has stated that on 8.2.1997, he had performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy. He has stated that the dead body was swollen and decomposed. He has further stated that no evidence of any anti-mortem injury was found on the dead body of the deceased. He has also stated that no definite opinion can be given about the cause of death of the deceased. 21. From perusal of the postmortem report which is Exhibit-4, it transpires that the finding in the postmortem report regarding the cause of death of the deceased is fully corroborated by the oral testimony of the deposition of Dr. Ashok Kumar PW-6, recorded during the trial. 22. The dead body of the deceased was recovered from a well. In the postmortem report, it has been stated that the deceased had died about a week prior to the date of his postmortem. The postmortem was conducted on 07.02.1997. As per the statements of Rukmani Devi PW-1, Raghunath Goswamy PW-2 and Asha Kumari PW-3, the deceased went missing on 02.02.1997. It is apparent that the deceased died after 4-5 days from the time when he went missing. 23. The prosecution has been able to show that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a well, so, it cannot be said that the deceased died a natural death. However, in absence of any specific finding as there was no mark of anti-mortem injury on the person of the deceased, it cannot be said beyond all reasonable doubts that the deceased had died homicidal death. The death of the deceased may be suicidal or accidental. 24. However, in absence of any specific finding as there was no mark of anti-mortem injury on the person of the deceased, it cannot be said beyond all reasonable doubts that the deceased had died homicidal death. The death of the deceased may be suicidal or accidental. 24. From the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses namely Rukmani Devi PW-1 the mother of the deceased, Raghunath Goswamy PW-2 the father of the deceased and Asha Kumari PW-3 the sister of the deceased (informant), it appears that after the deceased went missing, they ran from pillar to post to get his missing report registered. Their entire evidence is based on this fact that they had approached several persons to get his missing report registered. None of the witnesses have stated that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. Only suspicion has been raised that due to previous enmity, the appellant must have abducted and caused the homicidal death of the deceased. However, strong suspicion cannot be a ground for holding a person guilty for committing an offence. 25. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant for abducting the deceased or for committing his murder and thereafter, concealing his dead body in order to screen himself from legal punishment. 26. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is set aside. 27. The appellant is on bail. He along-with his bailers are discharged from the liabilities towards the bail bond. 28. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. 29. Before parting, we will like to record my appreciation for Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, who has very ably assisted this Court during the hearing of the case. The Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- as remuneration to him.