Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 708 (JHR)

Sunil Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2024-08-02

AMBUJ NATH

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ambuj Nath, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2005 passed by Shri Brajendra Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-8th, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T Case No. 322 of 2003 arising out of Rail Daltonganj P.S. Case No. 43 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 1122 of 2003, holding the appellant guilty of the offences under sections 328, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I for six years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offences under section 328 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for two years each for the offences under sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I for three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of self-statement of Shri Rajiv Ranjan, Officer-In-charge, Railway Police Force, Garhwa Road stating therein that on 21.08.2003 at about 4.10 a.m. he was on inspection duty at Garhwa Road Railway Junction. At about 4.15 a.m., Palamau Express came at Platform No. 3. He was informed that a person was lying in unconscious condition in 2nd class bogey of the train. He rushed to the 3rd bogey of 2nd class and saw a person lying there in unconscious state. On query from the co-passengers, Informant came to know that a person with a VIP suitcase, black Airbag and a jute bag belonging to the unconscious passenger had deboarded from the train. The Informant party started searching for the said person and apprehended him with the luggage of the unconscious person while he was trying to board a jeep. The apprehended person stated his name to be Sunil Kumar, the present appellant. Seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence. Unconscious person was also searched and the key of the suitcase was found in his possession. On opening of the suitcase, it transpired that the unconscious person was Dhupan Ram. A separate seizure list was prepared of the object so recovered from the suit case. The appellant confessed his guilt and stated that he had administered a medicine Vallium-10 mixing in a cream biscuit to the victim and when he became unconscious, he deboarded the train with his luggage. 3. A separate seizure list was prepared of the object so recovered from the suit case. The appellant confessed his guilt and stated that he had administered a medicine Vallium-10 mixing in a cream biscuit to the victim and when he became unconscious, he deboarded the train with his luggage. 3. Charge was framed against the appellant under sections 328, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. content of charge was read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidences. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the victim has not identified the appellant in the dock. It was further submitted that the seizure witnesses also have not supported the factum of recovery from the appellant. Accordingly, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges. 6. Now, it has to be ascertained, whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. Dhupan Ram has been examined as P.W-8. He has stated that on 20.08.2003 while he was travelling in Palamau Express, a person sat beside him and offered him biscuits. He took biscuits from him and ate it and thereafter he became unconscious. When he gained consciousness in hospital at Garhwa Road, he came to know that his luggage was stolen. He has not identified the appellant in the dock. It is evident that the victim has supported the occurrence but has not identified the appellant. Ramesh Ram (P.W-1) is a witness of seizure. He has stated that on the date and time of occurrence, he was present at the Platform. Suddenly there was commotion. A person was looted after administering medicine. He has stated that a VIP suitcase along with other baggage were seized. Seizure list was prepared and he signed on the seizure list as a witness. He has identified his signature on the seizure list which has been marked Ext.-1. Nawal Kumar Dixit (P.W-2) is another witness of seizure. He has identified his signature on the seizure list which is Ext.-1/1. Brahmadeo Ram (P.W-3) is another seizure witness. He has not supported the prosecution case. As such, he has been declared hostile. He has identified his signature on the seizure list which has been marked Ext.-1. Nawal Kumar Dixit (P.W-2) is another witness of seizure. He has identified his signature on the seizure list which is Ext.-1/1. Brahmadeo Ram (P.W-3) is another seizure witness. He has not supported the prosecution case. As such, he has been declared hostile. Madan Ram (P.W-4) is another witness to the seizure list. He has identified his signature on the seizure list which has been marked Ext.-2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has signed the seizure list out of fear. Rajiv Ranjan (P.W-5) is a Police Officer. He is the Informant of this case. He has stated that on 21.08.2003 at about 4.00 a.m., he along with other Railway Police Personnels was on duty at Platform at Railway Station. At 4.15 a.m., Palamau Express came at Platform No. 3. He came to know that a person was lying in unconscious state in the 3rd bogey of the train. He went there. On query from the co-passengers, he came to know that a person has deboarded the train with a suitcase and jute bag. The Informant party started checking and apprehended the appellant with the belongings of the victim while he was trying to board a jeep. He stated his name to be Sunil Prasad. On search, Rs. 9,700/- were recovered from his possession and suitcase, tickets and books in the name of the victim Dhupan Ram were also recovered from his possession. The appellant could not give the keys of the suitcase. However, on search of the unconscious victim, keys were found and suitcase was opened. He prepared the seizure list at the place of occurrence itself. He has proved the seizure list which is Ext.2/1 and the seizure list of articles recovered from the victim which was marked Ext.-1/2. He has identified the appellant in the dock. This witness has been cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the seizure list was prepared at the Platform No. 3 itself and not at the place where appellant was arrested. Ram Sagar Choudhary (P.W-6) is one of the member of the police party. He has supported the prosecution case. He has stated that on 21.08.2003 at about 5.00 a.m., he was on duty at Platform No. 3. Ram Sagar Choudhary (P.W-6) is one of the member of the police party. He has supported the prosecution case. He has stated that on 21.08.2003 at about 5.00 a.m., he was on duty at Platform No. 3. When Palamau Express came, the Informant party came to know that a person was lying in unconscious state in the train. On query, they came to know that one unknown person has deboarded the train with the belongings of the victim. This person was arrested while he was trying to board a jeep. All the articles were seized. He has identified the appellant in the dock. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot state the bogey number of the train where the victim was lying unconscious. He has also stated that he has not seen the appellant giving the drugged biscuits to the victim or taking away his belongings. Dr. Kaushal Sahagal (P.W-7) is the doctor who examined the victim. He has stated that on 21.08.2003 at about 10.00 a.m., he examined the victim Dhupan Ram. He was brought to the hospital after being administered some poisonous or intoxicated substance. He has proved the medical report which is Ext.-4. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not mentioned in the medical report that this was a suspected case of poisoning. Shyam Sundar Prajapati (P.W-9) is a formal witness. He has proved the formal FIR. 8. On perusal of the documentary evidence, it transpires that the money bag containing Rs. 500/-, a Railway Pass in the name of the victim Dhupan Ram, Cash Memo and other articles were recovered from the person of the victim. From perusal of the seizure list (Ext.-2/1), it appears that Rs. 9,700/- along with jute bag, one suitcase and hand bag were recovered from the possession of the appellant. On opening of the suitcase, other articles belonging to the victim were seized from the suitcase, Airbag and Jute bag. Sticker in the name of Dhupan Ram was found affixed on the VIP suitcase. 9. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that the victim Dhupan Ram (P.W-8) has supported the prosecution case that the occurrence has taken place and he was made unconscious by a person after he consumes drugged biscuits and his belongings were taken away. 9. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that the victim Dhupan Ram (P.W-8) has supported the prosecution case that the occurrence has taken place and he was made unconscious by a person after he consumes drugged biscuits and his belongings were taken away. The Informant and other police personnel who were on duty have supported the fact the appellant was apprehended with the belongings of the appellant while he was trying to board a jeep. Keys of the suitcase was not found with the appellant, rather on search, the same was recovered from the victim and VIP suitcase was opened with the keys which was recovered from the person of the victim. This fact has been corroborated by the police personnel and also from the seizure list. Though, seizure witnesses regarding seizure of articles from the appellant have not supported the factum of seizure, but the Informant has proved the seizure list. There is nothing in his cross-examination to doubt his veracity. The doctor who had examined the victim has also opined that the victim was brought to the hospital as he was poisoned by administering drug or any other intoxicating substance. 10. In view of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant for the offences under sections 328 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Though, the appellant has also been held guilty for the offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, but this finding is superfluous as the appellant was apprehended soon after the occurrence with the belongings of the victim. Accordingly, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court holding the appellant guilty of the offences under sections 328 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed and it does not require any interference. However, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court against the appellant for the offence under section 411 is set aside. 11. This appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. Learned Trial Court is directed to take him into custody to serve out the remaining sentence, if not already served. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.