Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1046 (PAT)

Ranjeet Chaudhary v. State of Bihar

2025-12-08

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, SONI SHRIVASTAVA

body2025
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellants of the aforesaid two appeals as also learned APP for the State, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh on the issue of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the aforesaid two appellants. 2. The aforesaid two appeals have been preferred against the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.10.2024 and 12.11.2024 respectively, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-V, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial Case No. 97 of 2004 (arising out of Sanjhauli P.S. Case No. 50 of 2003) whereby and whereunder while both the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the I.P.C.’), the appellant of the first case has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. By the order of sentence dated 12.11.2024, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in the event of non-payment of the same, they have been further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. As far as appellant of the first case is concerned, he has also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years under Section 27 of the Arms Act with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in the event of non-payment of the same, he has been further directed to undergo one-year rigorous imprisonment. All these sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The short facts of the case as per the fardbeyan of the informant, namely Niranti Devi (P.W. 4), who is the mother of the deceased, namely Manish Kumar Singh @ Rinku is that on 14.10.2003 at about 5:30 P.M. in the evening, she was preparing Litti in her house when her younger son, namely Manish Kumar Singh @ Rinku had taken one Litti in his hand and had gone outside the house informing her that he is going to the field to ease himself and would come soon, whereafter he had gone towards Susari Chowk. The informant has further stated that when his son did not come by 9:00 P.M. in the night, she thought that he must have gone to the place where Ramayan is being held in the village. The informant has further stated that when his son did not come by 9:00 P.M. in the night, she thought that he must have gone to the place where Ramayan is being held in the village. Thereafter, again at 11:00 P.M. in the night, the informant had sent her elder son, namely Pappu Singh to search for her younger son but the whereabouts of her younger son could not be ascertained, hence she thought that he might have slept somewhere. In the morning at about 6:00 A.M., a co-villager, namely Rama Shankar Singh (P.W. 5) had come to her house and told her that Manish Kumar Singh has been killed and his dead body is lying near the newly constructed railway line. The said Rama Shankar Singh had further informed the informant that on 14.10.2003 at about 6:30 P.M., while he was sitting at the Chowk after coming through the field, he had seen his co-villager Dharmendra Sah (appellant of the second case) and one Bharat Chaudhary going along with Manish Kumar Singh towards Samhuta by the road which is situated towards east of Susari Chowk and goes to Samhuta. The informant has also stated that thereafter, her son did not return back and he was killed. The informant had also sent her son Pappu Singh to inquire about Bharat Chaudhary and Dharmendra Sah, however both were absconding since the previous night. The informant has lastly stated in her fardbeyan that Manish Kumar Singh was killed by Bharat Chaudhary and Dharmendra Sah, who have conspired together with other accomplices. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, Sanjhauli P.S. Case No. 50 of 2003 was registered on 15.10.2003 at 12:30 P.M. under Section 302/ 120(B)/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act against Dharmendra Sah and Bharat Chaudhary. 4. The records of the aforesaid two appeals have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellants for suspension of their sentence and release on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 5. 4. The records of the aforesaid two appeals have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellants for suspension of their sentence and release on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 5. Learned counsels for the appellants of the aforesaid two appeals have jointly submitted that a bare perusal of the deposition of the informant, i.e. P.W. 4 would show that she has stated therein that when her son had left the house through its door, she had seen from the window of the house that Ranjeet Chaudhary (appellant of the 1st case), Bharat Chaudhary and Dharmendra Sah (appellant of the 2nd case) had called her son and taken him away, however in the F.I.R. she has stated that her younger son had taken one Litti in his hand and had gone outside the house informing her that he is going to the field to ease himself and would come soon, whereafter he had gone towards Susari Chowk. It is also submitted that apart from the said improvement made in the deposition by P.W.4, she has also made yet another improvement to the effect that though in her fardbeyan she has stated that P.W.5, namely Rama Shankar Singh had informed her that on 14.10.2003 at about 6:30 P.M., he had seen the deceased going with Dharmendra Sah (appellant of the 2nd case) and Bharat Chaudhary, however in her deposition she has stated that Rama Shankar Singh (P.W.5) had told her that he had seen Dharmendra Sah (appellant of the 2nd case), Bharat Chaudhary as also Ranjeet Chaudhary (appellant of the 1st case), going along with the deceased. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to paragraph No. 10 of the deposition of P.W.4 to submit that she has stated therein that in her fardbeyan, she has taken the name of Ranjeet Chaudhary as well whom she had seen going along with her son, however a bare perusal of the fardbeyan does not depict that P.W.4 has stated regarding Ranjeet Chaudhary much less Dharmendra Sah having accompanied the deceased on the previous evening. Thus, it is submitted that P.W.4 is not a truthful witness, hence no reliance can be placed on her testimony. Thus, it is submitted that P.W.4 is not a truthful witness, hence no reliance can be placed on her testimony. Reference has also been made to the deposition of P.W.5 to submit that in paragraph no.10 of his deposition he has stated that in the evening he had seen the accused persons going along with the deceased, however he had not disclosed the said fact to the mother of the deceased, thus the same also creates doubt about the veracity of his statement. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has next stated that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, however the evidence on record does not lead one to draw an inference with regard to the chain of circumstances being complete. It is submitted that neither the husband of the informant, namely Bhirmal Singh has been examined by the prosecution nor the Investigating Officer has been examined, which has caused grave prejudice to the appellants. It is thus contended that in case the Investigating Officer of the case would have been examined, the defence would have got an opportunity of cross-examining the Investigating Officer so as to elicit contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses as compared to what they had stated under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. before the police, however in absence of examination of the Investigating Officer, the defence has been precluded from such an opportunity. It is also submitted that a bare perusal of the evidence on record would show that motive has not stood established much less there is any whisper in the evidence of the witnesses regarding there being any motive for the appellants to kill the deceased. 7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is a well settled law that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt, hence an accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is, thus the guilt of the accused is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and unless proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubts, he is presumed to be innocent. In this regard reference has been made to a judgment dated 10.04.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3869 of 2023 (Ravishankar Tandon vs. State of Chattishgarh). In this regard reference has been made to a judgment dated 10.04.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3869 of 2023 (Ravishankar Tandon vs. State of Chattishgarh). Reliance has also been made upon yet another judgment dated 28.11.2024, passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1902 of 2013 (Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr. vs. State of Uttrakhand) to submit that firstly the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused as also the circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis regarding the guilt of the accused. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 715 to submit that the circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime and there must be something more to establish the connectivity between the accused and the crime. In the said judgment, rendered in the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), it has also been held that the theory of last seen i.e., the accused having been seen in the company of the deceased, being singular piece of circumstantial evidence, would not lead to the conviction being maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on the conduct of the accused and these facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased. Reference has next been made to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 406 to submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held therein that mere abscondence of an accused does not lead to a firm conclusion of his guilty mind, inasmuch as an innocent man may also abscond in order to evade arrest and such an action may be part of the natural conduct of the accused, hence abscondence of an accused must only be taken as a minor item in evidence for sustaining conviction, since mere abscondence of the accused after commission of the crime and remaining untraceable cannot by itself establish the guilt, as absconding by itself is not conclusive either of guilt or of guilty conscience. 9. Per contra, the learned APP for the State, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and has submitted that all the witnesses are consistent on the point of last seen theory, hence the chain of circumstances being complete, the guilt of the appellants has stood proved beyond all reasonable doubt, thus no sympathy should be shown to the appellants and their prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail should be rejected. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having cursorily gone through the evidence on record, we prima facie find that even the story of last seen has been altered and improved by the informant (P.W.4) as also by P.W.5, i.e. Rama Shankar Singh inasmuch as while the informant in her fardbeyan has stated that P.W.5, Rama Shankar Singh had disclosed before her that he had seen Dharmendra Sah and Bharat Chaudhary with the deceased on the previous evening, however she has changed her version in her deposition and has stated therein that in the evening when her son was going out though the door of the house she had seen from the window that he was being accompanied by the appellants herein & one Bharat Chaudhary. Thus, apparently the first version as narrated by the informant in her fardbeyan is at great variance with her testimony. Thus, apparently the first version as narrated by the informant in her fardbeyan is at great variance with her testimony. Similarly, we find that as far as P.W.5 Rama Shankar Singh is concerned, though the informant has stated in her fardbeyan that he had told her that he had seen Dharmendra Sah and Bharat Chaudhary accompanying the deceased, however P.W.5, in his deposition has taken the name of three persons i.e., the appellants and one Bharat Chaudhary, which also shows that there is variance in between the story as narrated in the fardbeyan and the testimony of P.W.4 and P.W.5. 11. Further, we find that the circumstance of last seen is not supported by any other evidence on record, hence the same being singular piece of circumstantial evidence, it cannot lead to the conviction being maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be. Moreover, these facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive. Thus, we prima facie find that as far as circumstantial evidence is concerned, the evidence on record does not lead us to draw an inference with respect to the chain of circumstances being complete and guilt of the appellants having been proved beyond all reasonable doubts, in the backdrop of complete absence of any motive, which is an important link in the chain of circumstances. We also find that substantial part of the evidence which has been congregated during the course of recording of the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses have not been put to the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., hence the same could not have been used to convict the appellants. Lastly, we find from the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2024 that the learned Trial Judge has stated therein that after the dead body of the deceased was recovered, search was made for the accused persons at their house and they were found to be absconding and such behavior of the accused also creates a suspicion, which in the opinion of this Court cannot lead to the conviction being maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be. 12. Thus taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed hereinabove, taking into account the submissions advanced by the Ld. 12. Thus taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed hereinabove, taking into account the submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties and for the foregoing reasons as also considering the fact that the appellants are in custody since about two years and the appeals being of the year 2024 are not likely to be heard in near future, we are of the considered view that the appellants have made out a case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the present appeals. 13. Accordingly, we direct the suspension of order of sentence dated 12.11.2024 qua the appellants herein as also direct for their release on bail during the pendency of the appeals, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-V, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 2004 (arising out of Sanjhauli P.S. Case No.50 of 2003). 14. It is clarified that the observation made hereinabove are prima facie and tentative in nature for the purposes of consideration of the prayer of the appellants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and shall not cause any prejudice to either of the parties at the time of hearing of the main appeals. 15. List these appeals for hearing in their own turn.