Ram Prasad Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2466 Jhar

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

                       Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 2017

(Against the judgment of conviction dated 01.10.2016 and the order of sentence dated
03.10.2016 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in
Sessions Trial No. 423 of 2008)
                                 ------
Ram Prasad Sao, son of Kishori Sao, resident of village Ukharsal, PO Gadi,
Navdiha, PS Jamua, District Giridih, Jharkhand           ...... Appellant

                                    Versus
The State of Jharkhand                                           ...... Respondent

                                 (Heard through V.C. on 20.07.2021 & 22.07.2021)
                                   PRESENT
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
                               -------
      For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate
                             Mr. Shyam Sundar Pd.Kushwaha, Advocate
      For the State        : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, PP
                               -------
                           Oral Judgment
                             22.07.2021

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.

Arjun Ravidas was seen in the evening of 15.01.2008 in the company of Kishori Sao, Ram Prasad Sao, Manoj Sao, Ajay Sao, Ranjit Sao and Kusum Devi in the house of Kishori Sao at village Ukharsal. Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi were found dead next morning in the house of Kishori Sao. A blood-stained tangi, chhura (knife) and a plastic rope were found lying near the dead bodies. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Torri Ravidas which was recorded by B.Choudhary, officer in charge of Jamua police station, at about 10:30 AM on 16.01.2008 at village Ukharsal, Jamua PS Case No. 12 of 2008 was registered against the above-named persons for committing the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The inquest reports were prepared and the dead bodies were sent for postmortem examination 16.01.2008. Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad who was posted at CAS, Sadar Hospital, Giridih conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi on the same day. He has observed antemortem injuries on their dead bodies and in his opinion death had occurred within 48 hours of postmortem examination. After the investigation a charge-sheet was 2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 2017

laid against the accused and records of Ajay Sao and Ranjit Sao were separated as they were declared juvenile. A common charge under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was framed on 27.08.2009 against Kishori Sao, Kusum Devi, Manoj Sao and Ram Prasad Sao. Subsequently, on 24.09.2012 a separate charge under section 498-A/149 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused.

2. In Sessions Trial No. 423 of 2008, the prosecution laid evidence through eighteen witnesses out of which PW2 Parmeshwar Ravidas is the brother-in-law, PW6 Torri Ravidas is the father, PW7 Dulari Devi is the wife and PW14 Gayatri Devi is the mother of Arjun Ravidas, and four witnesses - PW4 Arjun Sao is the uncle, PW5 Binod Kumar Sahu is the cousin, PW8 Santosh Kumar Sahu is the brother and PW10 Sakunwa Devi is the aunt of Kalawati Devi, who were examined by the prosecution to prove the charge of murder against the accused.

3. The learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih has held that the prosecution did not establish motive for the crime but lack of proof of motive did not weaken its case. Believing the testimony of the defence witnesses which was corroborated by the prosecution witnesses including PW10 Sakunwa Devi who was aunt of Kalawati Devi, the learned Trial Judge acquitted Kishori Sao, Kusum Devi and Manoj Sao on the ground that they were not residing with the appellant Ram Prasad Sao at village Ukharsal and there was no credible evidence that in the evening of 15.01.2008 they were present in the house at Ukharsal in the company of Arjun Ravidas. The prosecution witnesses admitted in the Court that Kishori Sao was a teacher in a Government School and his wife and sons, namely, Manoj Sao, Ajay Sao and Ranjit Sao were residing with him in a rented house at village Chotki Kharagrdiha for the last 6-7 years.

4. Ram Prasad Sao has been found guilty for committing murder of Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi primarily for the reason that (i) Arjun Ravidas was seen alive last in his company, (ii) dead bodies of Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati were found inside the house occupied by him, and

(iii) he has failed to offer any explanation how his wife died and two dead bodies were found in his house.

5. Mr. Anurag Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that an inference against the accused for committing murder cannot 3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 2017

be drawn merely on the basis of the evidence that two dead bodies were found in his house. It is further submitted that the prosecution could not prove motive for the crime and almost on the same set of evidence three accused have been acquitted whereas the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of suspicion. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to and relied on the judgments in "Navaneethakrishnan v. State by the Inspector of Police" (2018)16 SCC 161, "Mahamadkhan Nathekhan v. State of Gujarat" (2014) 14 SCC 589, "Ganpat Singh v. State of M.P." (2017) 16 SCC 353, "Jose v. Sub-Inspector of Police" (2016) 10 SCC 519, "Dev Kanya Tiwari v. State of U.P." (2018) 5 SCC 734 and "State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar" (2018) 2 SCC 69, to support the aforesaid arguments.

6. In "State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar" (2018) 2 SCC 69 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that when conviction is based on circumstantial evidence there should not be any gap in the chain of circumstances. In "Navaneethakrishnan v. State by the Inspector of Police" (2018)16 SCC 161 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in absence of any other material except the evidence of last-seen-together the accused cannot be convicted for murder. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"22. PW 11 was able to identify all the three accused in the court itself by recapitulating his memory as those persons who came at the time when he was washing his car along with John Bosco and further that he had last seen all of them sitting in Omni van on that day and his testimony to that effect remains intact even during the cross-examination in the light of the fact that the said witness has no enmity whatsoever against the appellants herein and he is an independent witness. Once the testimony of PW 11 is established and inspires full confidence, it is well established that it is the accused who were last seen with the deceased specially in the circumstances when there is nothing on record to show that they parted from the accused and since then no activity of the deceased can be traced and their dead bodies were recovered later on. It is a settled legal position that the law presumes that it is the person, who was last seen with the deceased, would have killed the deceased and the burden to rebut the same lies on the accused to prove that they had departed. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. However, this evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration. ......................................................................................

27. The law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other 4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 2017

hypothesis against the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. When the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The Court is mindful of caution by the settled principles of law and the decisions rendered by this Court that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one had committed the offence, which in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove."

7. The learned Trial Judge has culled out the following incriminating circumstances appearing from the record against the accused:

"46. While I scrutinizing the evidence against Ram Prasad Sao, I find that P.W.l has clearly stated that when he and deceased Arjun Ravidas was returning and reached near the house of Ram Prasad Sao, Ram Prasad Sao took away Arjun Ravidas to his house. P.W. 6 being the informant has also stated in examination-in-chief that when he asked from Ramdeo about Arjun Ravidas he told that Ram Prasad Sao took him to his house. It is also in the evidence of the informant that when he asked from Ram Prasad he told that he will drop Arjun Ravidas to the house. PW10 has clearly stated that house where the alleged occurrence took place and dead bodies were found was or is being used by Ram Prasad Sao. Ram Prasad Saw was residing in the house with his wife (deceased) and the sons. This witness has clearly stated that Kishori Sao did not come his house of Ukharsal about 7 years. She has also stated that Ram Prasad Sao was residing separately from his parents. On careful scrutinizing the evidence the following chain of circumstances have been established---

(i) It is established that Kalawati devi (deceased) was the wife of Ram Prasad Sao and she was living in the house with Ram Prasad Sao.

(ii) It is also established beyond reasonable doubt that the death of deceased Kalawati and Arjun Ravidas were homicidal which occurred on 15/16-01-2008.

(iv) It is also established that deceased was murdered in the house which was or is being occupied by Ram Prasad Sao. It is also established that weapons which was used in commission of murder of two persons were found inside the house containing blood stained.

(v) Perusal of the number of anti mortem and post mortem injuries mentioned in autopsy report read with statement of Dr. Kameshwar Prasad (P.W.15) established beyond reasonable doubt that the crime could have been done by one person.

(vi) P.W. 1 Ramdeo has stated that deceased Arjun Ravidas was called by Ram Prasad and took away him(deceased) to his house.

5 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 2017

(vii) Informant (P.W.6) being the father of Arjun Ravidas has stated that Ram Prasad has told him that he will drop the Arjun Ravidas.

(viii) It is conclusively established that house where dead bodies were found was being exclusively used by Ram Prasad Sao.

(ix) Accused Ram Prasad has failed to disclose as to how his wife and Arjun Ravidas have died although which was especially within his knowledge.

(x) It was not the defence of the accused that any outsider came in the house.

(xi) There is no report lodged to police by Ram Prasad Sao regarding homicidal death of his wife and one Arjun Ravidas.

(xii) Ram Prasad Sao has taken blatant false plea under section 313 that he had gone to his sister's house.

The above chain of circumstances against Ram Prasad Sao is complete, and his alibi plea that he had gone to his sister's house cannot be accepted.

Keeping in view the above cogent circumstantial evidence against accused Ram Prasad Sao, I hereby hold Ram Prasad Sao guilty u/s 302 of I.P.C. to commit murder of Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi being his wife."

8. The aforesaid circumstances if found established by the prosecution would certainly lead to an inescapable conclusion that the appellant has committed murder of Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi.

9. The dead bodies of Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi were found in the house of Kishori Sao who is father of the appellant. It has come on record that the said house was occupied by Ram Prasad Sao in which he was living with his wife Kalawati Devi. Kishori Sao was working as a teacher in a school and living in a rented house with his wife and other minor children at Chotki Kharagrdiha. We see that there is no serious challenge by the defence that the house in which Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi were found dead was in possession of Ram Prasad Sao, and the attempt of the defence was only to elicit from the prosecution witnesses that Kishori Sao was living at village Chotki Kharagrdiha with his wife and minor children.

10. It is not in dispute that the death of Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi was homicidal in nature.

11. PW15, Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad who conducted autopsy on 16.01.2008 has found the following three incised wounds over the dead body of Kalawati Devi: (i) 2"x ½" x muscle deep right submandibular area,

(ii) 2"x ¼"x muscle deep left side of neck cutting all the major vessels, and

(iii) 2"x ¼" x muscle deep left elbow. In his opinion, the injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by sharp-cutting weapon such as chhura (knife).

6 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 2017

12. On the same day at about 04:45 PM, PW15 has conducted autopsy over the dead body of Arjun Ravidas and found the following three incised wounds: (i) 3"x ¼" x bone deep over left temporal area,(ii) 3"x ¼"x muscle deep over left angle of mouth, and (iii) ½"x ¼" x over left forehead. The doctor has found one bruise of the size of " 2"x ¼" " on the left lateral side of the arm, and skull of Arjun Ravidas was found fractured - cranial cavity was full of clotted blood. In his opinion, the injuries were caused to Arjun Ravidas by hard and blunt substance such as kulhari.

13. In the estimation of PW15, Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi had died within 48 hours from the postmortem examination. Arjun Ravidas was seen in the house of the appellant in the evening of 15.01.2008 and thereafter he was not seen alive. The estimation of time of death by PW15 about 48 hours from the postmortem examination could have been something substantial for the defence to hang on had there been any doubt that murder was committed somewhere else, but that is not so in the present case. As many as eight witnesses have seen the dead bodies drenched in blood lying in the courtyard in the house of the appellant and near the dead bodies a blood-stained tangi, knife and plastic rope which according to the prosecution were used for committing murder were also found lying.

14. In this view of the matter the estimation of time of death by PW15 does not contradict the prosecution case rather the medical evidence provides a conclusive circumstance against the appellant.

15. PW4, PW5 and PW8 have testified about the demand of dowry by the appellant.

16. PW4 has deposed that marriage of Kalawati Devi was solemnized with Ram Prasad about 20 years ago and they had three children. He has further stated that Kishori Sao and Ram Prasad Sao would demand a Hero Honda motorcycle and were threatening to kill Kalawati if their demand was not fulfilled. He has further stated that about 10 days back he had gone to Kalawati's house to settled the dispute. PW5 has deposed in the Court that about 10 days back on receiving telephonic information he had gone to the house of Kalawati where he came to know that Kalawati was always subjected to cruelty and torture by her in-laws' in connection to demand of motorcycle and one lakh rupees and in his presence the accused threatened her, that if the demand was not fulfilled within 10 days she would 7 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 2017

be killed. PW8 has stated that after marriage of his sister, she was always tortured by her in-laws' in connection to demand of two lakh rupees and a motorcycle. He has further stated that a panchayati was also held on 06.01.2008 in which the accused assured that they would not torture Kalawati but after 10 days of the panchayati his sister was murdered.

17. From the above, it appears that there is some discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses regarding the amount of dowry and they have spoken about involvement of other family members in demand of dowry, but we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved the charge under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and, accordingly, conviction of the appellant under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed.

18. The prosecution has based its case on the testimony of PW1 and PW6 who have deposed in the Court that Arjun Ravidas was seen alive last in the company of the appellant - the other accused were acquitted because in the circumstances the learned Trial Judge found exaggeration in the testimony of PW6 to that extent.

19. PW1 is a co-worker who has come to the Court to depose that in the evening of 15.01.2008 while Arjun Ravidas was returning home with him they met Ram Prasad Sao on the way and Arjun Ravidas went along with Ram Prasad Sao to his house. PW1 has further stated that he informed PW6 about the same when he inquired about his son. Next day morning he heard about dead bodies of Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi found in the house of Kishori Sao. PW6, the informant has deposed in the Court that on 15.01.2008 his son left home for working in brick-kiln but in the evening when he saw only Ramdev Ravidas returning home he inquired from him about his son and Ramdev Ravidas told him that his son has gone with Ram Prasad Sao. In the evening by 08:00 PM when his son did not come then he went to the house of Kishori Sao where he found his son sitting with Kishori Sao, Manoj Sao, Ajay Sao, Ranjit Sao and Kusum Devi. When he asked his son to come home Ram Prasad Sao told him that he would drop him home later on. Next day morning when he asked his daughter-in-law about his son she informed him that Arjun Ravidas did not come back home last evening. Then he had gone to the house of Kishori Sao but did not find him in the house. He has seen the dead body of Kalawati Devi in the 8 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 2017

courtyard and the dead body of his son in a room. He has also found Kulhari, tangi and knife lying there.

20. In the cross-examination of PW1 and PW6, the defence did not challenge presence of these witnesses in the village. The appellant has also not set up a plea of alibi, and the evidence of PW1 and PW6 that he was present in the village and seen with Arjun Ravidas has remained unimpeached by the defence. Now the appellant must tell the Court how his wife has suffered homicidal death in her matrimonial home and how dead body of Arjun Ravidas was found in the room occupied by him. It would be within the exclusive knowledge of a husband who lives with his wife under the same roof in what manner his wife was killed and a failure on his part to offer a plausible and acceptable explanation would be a highly incriminating circumstance raising grave suspicion on his complicity in the murder of his wife.

21. The learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih has recorded the following findings:

"37. On perusal of the evidence of witnesses it further appears to me that there are also cogent evidence that dead body of both the persons were found in the house of the accused persons. P.W. 1 has deposed that he saw the dead body of Kalawati and Arjun Ravidas in the house of Kishori Sao. P.W.2 has also come to depose that after receiving information regarding the death of Kalawati he went and saw the dead body of Kalawati lying in the house of Kishori Sao. This witness has also supported this fact that in his presence police has seized tangi, knife with blood, and rope from the place of occurrence. He admitted his signature on the seizure list. P.W.3 has also stated in evidence that after hearing the murder of Kalawati and Arjun Ravidas, he went to the house of Kishori Lal and saw the dead bodies of the aforesaid persons. P.W.4 has also supported this fact that he saw the dead bodies of Kalawati and Arjun Ravidas inside the house of Kishori Saw. P.W.5,6,8,9,10,11 and 12 all have stated in heir evidences that after hearing the murder they went to the house of Kishori Sao and saw the dead bodies of Kalawati and Arjun Ravidas inside the house of Kishori Sao. P.W.17 being the I.O has stated that he inspected the place of occurrence and according to him place of occurrence where the dead bodies were found was the house of accused persons. This witness has further stated that from the place of occurrence he recovered blood stained tangi, one knife and about 5 feet rope with blood.

Keeping in view the cogent evidence of the witnesses, fully corroborated by the I.O. there is no dispute that dead bodies of two persons namely Kalawati and Arjun Ravidas were found from inside the house of accused persons. Defence did not raise any doubt in course of argument regarding the recovery of dead bodies of two persons from their house. The defence of accused persons are that they do not live there rather they are living at Chotki Kharagrdiha in a rented house as Kishori Sao was by profession a school teacher. Since the prosecution has established this fact that 9 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 2017

dead body was found inside the house of the accused persons, therefore, the accused persons are duty bound to explain as to how the death of two persons were caused. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in A.I.R. 2016 page 1255 S.C. held thus- "When an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer. On the date of occurrence, when accused and his father Dasrath were in the house and when the father of the accused was found dead, it was for the accused to offer an explanation as to how his father sustained injuries. When the accused could not offer any explanation as to the homicidal death of his father, it is a strong circumstance against the accused that he is responsible for the commission of the crime."

The present case in hand squarely governed with the aforesaid principle."

22. In "Rajender v. State (NCT of Delhi)" (2019) 10 SCC 623 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that when the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are especially within his knowledge the Court can consider his failure to offer an explanation as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

23. In 'Rajendra' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"12.2.4. Having observed so, it is crucial to note that the reasonableness of the explanation offered by the accused as to how and when he/she parted company with the deceased has a bearing on the effect of the last seen in a case. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the burden of proof for any fact that is especially within the knowledge of a person lies upon such person. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company with the deceased. In other words, he must furnish an explanation that appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory, and if he fails to offer such an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, the burden cast upon him under Section 106 is not discharged. Particularly in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, such failure by itself can provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. This, however, does not mean that Section 106 shifts the burden of proof of a criminal trial on the accused. Such burden always rests on the prosecution. Section 106 only lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his/her knowledge and which cannot support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce an explanation as an additional link which completes the chain of incriminating circumstances."

24. In a recent judgment "Jayantilal Verma v. State of 10 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 2017

Chhattisgarh" 2020 SCC OnLine SC 944 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with a case almost similar on facts, thus:

"26. We are confronted with a factual situation where the appellant herein, as a husband is alleged to have caused the death of his wife by strangulation. The fact that the family members were in the home some time before is also quite obvious. No explanation has been given as to how the wife could have received the injuries. This is a strong circumstance indicating that he is responsible for commission of the crime.6 The appellant herein was under an obligation to give a plausible explanation regarding the cause of the death in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and mere denial could not be the answer in such a situation."

25. The circumstances which are enumerated by the learned Trial Judge in Paragraph No. 46 of the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 423 of 2008 are proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and consistent evidence. We find that the chain of circumstances so proved by the prosecution against the appellant is complete and there is no doubt that the appellant has committed murder of Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi, his wife. "Mahamadkhan Nathekhan v. State of Gujarat" (2014) 14 SCC 589 was a case in which there was more possibility of accidental death than homicidal death, and on facts homicidal death was not established. The judgment in "Mahamadkhan Nathekhan" does not help the appellant.

26. In "Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra" (2006) 10 SCC 681 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"12. ......The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence."

27. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in this criminal appeal and, accordingly, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 2017 is dismissed.

28. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned Public Prosecutor states that the appellant is in custody.

29. The appellant shall serve the remaining sentence as awarded to him by the learned Trial Court.

11 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 2017

30. Let lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith.

31. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through FAX.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 22nd July, 2021 S.B./Nibha-NAFR