Patna High Court has held that merely because the prosecution has alleged about the motive on the part of the appellants to commit a crime, it cannot be presumed that the appellants have in reality, committed the crime.
Brief facts of the Case:
The factual matrix of the case is that the father of the informant went to ease himself and the mother of the informant enquired about the whereabouts of the father of the informant. Then, all the family members got an impression that he has gone to meet the informant’s younger brother without informing anyone. Thereafter, the cousin of the brother-in-law of the informant informed the informant that while his father was returning, the accused persons namely Akhilesh Roy, Kanak Roy, Pantu Roy and Rasgulla Roy kidnapped him and took him to an unknown place under threat and when he asked informant’s father from which place he was talking, he replied that he was blind-folded and he has no idea about his whereabouts.
The informant's case is that Akhilesh Roy's brother-in-law is Milan Roy's brother. Milan Roy wished to solemnise his sister's union with the younger brother of the informant. The informant's younger brother turned away from marriage. As stated by the informant's father, a marriage cannot be formally consummated if his son, the prospective groom, is not agreeable to it. His father was forcefully taken or kidnapped as a form of retribution for this rejection.
After filing of the FIR, the investigation took place and the trial court convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that there was no eye witness and the prosecution has failed to prove the abduction/kidnapping punishable under Section-363 of I.P.C. It was furthermore contended that the trial court’s decision was merely based upon basis of presumption and assumptions and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents contended that the prosecution has clearly proved the motive on the part of the appellant for committing the offence. It was furthermore contended that the prosecution has proved the case of kidnapping and even after 7 years whereabouts of the abducted person was not found, therefore, it can be said that the appellants have committed the murder of the abducted person. At last, it was contended that the trial court has not committed any error while passing the judgment.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that none of the prosecution's witnesses had seen that the appellants kidnapped Rudal Roy. It also reveals that the prosecution has not been able to provide evidence of Rudal Roy's death and that his body has not even been located.
It was furthermore observed that in the absence of any evidence gathered by the investigative agency, the story put forward by the prosecution's witnesses cannot be trusted. It cannot be assumed that the appellants killed and kidnapped Rudal Roy just because the prosecution claimed that the appellants' motive in order to commit the crime was that the accused Akhilesh Roy's sister-in-law, who happens to be one of the appellants, refused to marry Rudal Roy's son.
It was noted that the prosecution has not been able to establish the death of Rudal Roy. It cannot be assumed that Rudal Roy has passed away or perished as his dead body has not been discovered. The Trial Court noted that, after seven years, there has been no news regarding Rudal Roy. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that Rudal Roy has passed away. The appellants must therefore demonstrate that Rudal Roy is still alive by providing convincing evidence, and if they are unable to do so, the Trial Court assumed that they killed him.
It was furthermore noted that it can’t be said from the evidence laid down by the prosecution that the present appellants have kidnapped/abducted Rudal Roy.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the trial court committed a grave error in recording the order of conviction and therefore, the appeal was allowed.
The Decision of the Court
The High Court was of the view that the trial court had committed an error in recording the order of conviction and therefore, the order passed by the trial court was quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Pantulal Roy and Anr. vs. The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and Rudra Prakash Mishra
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.80 of 2019
Advocates for the Appellants: Sanjay Singh, Rudrank Shivam Singh, Soni Shrivastava, Kalyan, and Ravi Bhardwaj
Advocate for the Respondent: Sujeet Kumar Singh
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
