Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar Das vs Vrs on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1344 of 2017
Anil Kumar Das ............Appellant
Vrs.
The State of Jharkhand ......... Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
For the Appellant : Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
06/15.07.2021 Heard Ms. Shruti Shrestha, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State on the prayer for suspension
of sentence of the appellant made through I.A. No. 6327 of 2020.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated
27.05.2017 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 79 of 2016 by the Court of
learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and a default
sentence by the order of sentence dated 31.05.2017.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the
prosecution at best is of last seen theory. She submits that the appellant in
his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C has made a categorical
answer that he himself informed the parents of the deceased that the driver
had parked the vehicle in the night and the dead body of the victim was
found therein. She has referred to the post mortem report Ext. 4 adduced
by Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh, P.W.17, which shows death by asphyxia
due to strangulation but the ligature mark is found only on the half of the
neck. She further submits that there are ante mortem injuries which could
have been sustained by the deceased, who was severely drunk, as per
statement of other prosecution witnesses, while moving in a hilly area,
where the place of occurrence is situated. Appellant has remained in
custody since 16.12.2016 i.e., about 5 years 6 months by now. No one had
seen the occurrence. It is unlikely that the appellant would murder the
victim and leave him in his own car parked in his garage. P.W.6 Dilbar
Hassa Purty, driver of the vehicle Nano, owned by the father of the
appellant in which the dead body of the victim has been found, has been
taken as a star witness upon whose testimony alone the learned Trial
Court has based the conviction. Nothing has been recovered from the
place of occurrence or the house of the appellant to connect the crime
with this appellant. P.W.8 Subhash Prasad Gupta, P.W.9 Bijay Prasad
Gupta, P.W.11 Rameshwar Bhakt, P.W.12 Nawal Bhakt and P.W.14 Tanu
Prasad have turned hostile. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail
by granting him privilege of suspension of sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has strongly opposed the prayer. He submits that as
per the case of the informant P.W.13 Parshuram Pan, father of the
deceased, his son was taken away on 14.12.2015 around 10.00 a.m. by the
appellant and next morning he found the dead body of his son lying in the
back seat of the vehicle of the appellant in his garage. It is submitted that
the driver of the vehicle P.W.6 Dilbar Hassa Purty has in his deposition
clearly stated that the victim was consuming country made liquor with the
appellant in the country made liquor shop of Mochrai Oreya. This witness
has further stated that he saw father of the appellant and the victim
leaving from Champa Bhatti. The appellant left this witness at Murga Para
in front of CRPF camp and on the next day he came to know that the
victim Niranjan Pan had died. The Medical Officer Dr. Birendra Kumar
Singh P.W.17 has found ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased
and cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. P.W.7 Sumi Sao
daughter-in-law of Champa Devi, the country made liquor shop owner,
has also stated that deceased came to her shop and when he was leaving
after consuming country made liquor, appellant and the driver of the
vehicle came on a vehicle and called the victim and took him with them.
On the next date she heard about the murder of Niranjan Pan. Therefore,
appellant may not be enlarged on bail given his direct involvement in the
crime.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.W.7 Sumi Sao in
her cross examination has however stated that she did not see the vehicle
and persons who boarded the vehicle because she was inside the house.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the relevant material evidence borne from the
lower court records as also the period of custody, said to have been
undergone by the appellant. Having regard to the testimony of P.W.6
Dilbar Hassa Purty, the driver of the vehicle of the appellant and the post
mortem report adduced by P.W.17 Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh indicating
death caused by asphyxia due to strangulation with other ante mortem
injuries and that the dead body was found in the vehicle of the appellant
parked in his garage, we are not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail
by granting him privilege of suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 6327 of 2020 is rejected.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
A.Mohanty
