Jharkhand High Court
Sandeep Kumar Bhagat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012
with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2012 and the order of sentence dated
03.07.2012 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-1, Dumka in
Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2010)
------
Sandeep Kumar Bhagat, son of Krishna Prasad Bhagat, resident of village
and PO Kharauni, PS Gopikandar, District-Dumka. ... ... Appellant
[In Cr.A. (DB) No. 805 of 2012]
1. Krishna Prasad Bhagat, son of late Dinanath Bhagat,
2. Sanjay Kumar Bhagat, son of Krishna Prasad Bhagat,
3. Kanchan Devi, wife of Krishna Prasad Bhagat,
4. Kiran Devi, wife of Sanjay Bhagat
All residents of village and PO Kharauni, PS Gopikandar,
District-Dumka. .... ...... Appellants
[In Cr.A. (DB) No. 807 of 2012]
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... .... Respondent
[In both cases]
(Heard through V.C. on 23.09.2021, 27.09.2021 & 28.09.2021)
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
[In both cases]
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha,APP
[In both cases]
-------
Oral Judgment
28.09.2021
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
The marriage of Munni Devi was solemnized with Sandeep
Kumar Bhagat on 25.06.2008 and in the morning of 11.08.2009 she was
reported dead in her matrimonial house at village Kharauni. Expressing his
apprehension that his daughter was murdered, Shanker Prasad Bhagat, her
father, gave a statement before the officer-in-charge of Gopikandar Police
Station at 11:45 AM on the same day and, accordingly, Gopikandar PS Case
No. 20 of 2009 was registered against Sandeep Kumar Bhagat, Sanjay
Kumar Bhagat, Krishna Prasad Bhagat, Kiran Devi and Kanchan Devi for
illegal demand of dowry and dowry death of Munni Devi. They were put on
2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012 with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012
trial in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2010 in which the prosecution examined
eight witnesses to prove the charges under sections 304-B/34 and 302/34 of
the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge held that the cumulative
effect of the circumstances which are firmly established against the accused
is that their guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The appellants are convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a
fine of Rs. 15,000/- each under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in
short 'IPC') with a default stipulation against each accused to undergo
further SI for six months.
3. The learned trial Judge has discussed the prosecution evidence
in the following manner:
"13. After argument of both the sides, I again gone through the
available evidences, oral as well as documentary, available on the
record, propositions of law as well as circumstances available on
record, I find firstly that the story set up by the defence that the
deceased died due to burn during cooking. But, this story is totally
false and concocted. If there was really burn which occurred in the
house where the accused persons reside but, there are no any
evidences/circumstances forwarded that they had tried to save the
deceased which is against the human behaviour and if not done so
by the accused persons where no other members were present,
points towards the fact that there was intention to kill the deceased.
Further more, no any evidence or paper has been brought by the
defence that the deceased was given treatment after the said burnt.
It was the burden duty/obligation to give treatment of his in-law, if
burnt during cooking and also firstly to try to save her from further
burning. But, no such facts and circumstances brought by the
defence on record creates fully doubt on this defence of the accused
persons. The doctor found the burn injury as postmortem injury.
Now, the vital consideration before this Court is that whether the
said burn injury was antemortem or postmortem. If the injury will
antemortem, as per medical jurisprudence, there must be well
marked vital reaction in the form of reddening of the skin
bordering the burn but, no such fact/injury was found by the board
of doctors who conducted the autopsy. Further if the burn was
antemortem, complications like early shock, respiratory damages,
pulmonary embolism and acute cardiac failure will occurred.
Further more, among the respiratory effects, a characteristic
feature may be massive collapse of both lungs resulting in purple
earless tissue as seen at autopsy. There will be acute anemia due to
damage to erythrocytes in the burns and to internal blood loss.
Further a less common but important complications of burn is the
occurrence of duodenal ulcers. But all these things were not found
by the board of doctors who conducted autopsy. Exhibit:2 clear
more on the points. Further also in view of the medical
jurisprudence, an antemortem injury of burn cannot be 90%. But,
in this case as per evidence of doctor, it is apparent that the burn of
the dead body is 90%. Other PWs including informant have also
deposed that whole body of deceased was burnt as they seen the
dead body when they reached at PO after the occurrence. Further
I/O has not found any incriminating articles such as clothes of the
3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012 with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012
deceased and any burn articles in the P.O's house to prove the fact
of burn. Further there is no spot of burn in the P.O's house. All
these evidences & circumstances clearly destroy the defence of the
accused persons that the deceased died due to burn during
cooking. So far medical treatment of the deceased regarding
mental problem is concerned, no any "chit" of paper has been
brought on record by the defence also goes against the case of the
defence. Further I find that the prosecution has fully proved the
motive of the murder of deceased due to non-fulfillment of dowry
as demanded by the accused persons. Further from the evidence of
doctor, I find that the death was caused due to asphyxia as a result
of throttling. The witnesses who reached at the place of the
occurrence after the occurrence seen the dead body of the
deceased and all they found that the neck of the deceased was
swollen. All the witnesses specifically and clearly deposed before
this Court that the neck of the deceased was swollen and all they
seen this fact when they arrived at P.O after getting information
about the death of the deceased. This fact has been fully
corroborated by the doctors of medical board who conducted the
autopsy of the deceased. Further the doctor has also found
swollen over the neck and congestion of the underlined tissues of
the neck and further trachea was also congested. So, all these facts
& circumstances as well as evidences on record clearly prove that
the deceased was murdered by the accused persons after throttling
of her neck and the death of the deceased was not due to burn. The
congestion of the underlined tissues of the neck as well as
congestion of trachea clearly pointed to the conclusion that the
death was due to throttling and strangulation and further rules out
the possibility of her death by burn. It is settle principles that a
man can tell lie but circumstances cannot. So far the argument
advanced by the ld. Lawyer of the defence that no any witnesses,
either u/s 161 Cr.p.c or before this Court during trial has stated
about murder of the deceased by the accused persons after
throttling the neck. It is true but this is due to the fact that prima
facie at first instance as they heard from the villagers of accused
persons and further they seen and so the said facts narrated the
whole story in their evidences. But, after evaluating and examining
all the facts and circumstances such as swollen over neck of the
deceased as seen by all PWs and further report of medical expert
clearly points about the murder of deceased and as such no merit
in the argument of the defence. The throttling of neck to the
deceased clearly indicates the intention of the accused persons. It
is true that no eye witness of the occurrence is there but, the
circumstances are against the defence, rather in favour of
prosecution. Hence I find that there is no merit and substance in
the argument of the ld. Lawyer of the defence rather there is merit
and weight in the argument of the ld. Addl.P.P. Further, I find that
it is not a case of dowry death rather death caused for dowry. The
occurrence took place within house of accused persons and
explanation given by them regarding death of the deceased is found
totally wrong and concocted and further, all the four accused
persons left the house except Kanchan Devi when such sorrowful
occurrence took with them clearly denote their involvement in the
alleged murder of the deceased Munni Devi- her-in-laws for
dowry. By all these circumstances, the guilt of the accused persons
cogently and firmly established and is of definite nature which
unerringly points towards the guilt of all the accused persons.
Further these circumstances and facts as well as evidences taken
cumulatively formed a chain to complete in itself that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the
4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012 with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012
murder of deceased Munni Devi was committed by the above
named five accused persons with common intention of all and none
else."
4. Mrs. J. Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the appellants
contends that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to hold that the chain
of circumstances is complete rather there are gaping holes in the prosecution
case and it is not established that no other hypothesis except the guilt of the
appellants is possible. The learned counsel has referred to the decision in
"Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar" 2021 SCC OnLine SC 717 to fortify her
contention that merely because a woman was found dead in her matrimonial
home the burden would not shift on the accused by operation of section 106
of the Indian Evidence Act and the accused cannot be held guilty unless so
proved.
5. With reference to the judgment in "Keshav v. State of
Maharashtra" (2007) 13 SCC 284, the learned counsel for the appellants
further contends that motive alone is not sufficient to convict the appellants
for committing murder of Munni Devi for non-fulfillment of demand of
dowry, though such motive has also not been proved by the prosecution.
6. No witness has come forward to depose in the Court how and
under which circumstances Munni Devi suffered burn injuries but the
witnesses have seen her dead body in her matrimonial house. The
prosecution has therefore laid circumstantial evidence to prove the charges
under sections 304-B/34 and 302/34 IPC.
7. When the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence
an inference about the guilt of the accused can be justified only when all the
incriminating circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of
the accused.
8. In "Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra" (1982) 2 SCC 351 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"9. ....... The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well
settled. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such
evidence must satisfy three tests: (1) the circumstances from which
an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and
firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite
tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) 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 none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
5 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012 with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012
conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any
other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The
circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the
guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
In the light of the legal position about the circumstantial evidence,
we have to examine whether the circumstantial evidence in the
instant case satisfies the requirements of law. The circumstantial
evidence in the instant case may be broadly classified into three
parts: (1) oral evidence to prove that in the absence of Namdeo,
the accused used to visit the house of Laxmi regularly and he was
seen in the evening of February 26, 1975 in the company of Laxmi
and her children. He was also seen at about 10.00 p.m. the same
night in the company of Laxmi under a neem tree in the village. At
midnight he was again seen going along the way near the house of
Babulal, (2) the various recoveries most of them at the instance of
the accused, and (3) medical evidence."
9. The appellants do not dispute that Munni Devi was found dead
on 11.08.2009 in her matrimonial home. They set up a defence that Munni
Devi was suffering from mental illness and in course of cooking she caught
fire and succumbed to the burn injuries which was found to the extent of
90% over her dead body. All the prosecution witnesses were put to a
suggestion that Munni Devi was suffering from mental illness and her father
was given a legal notice by the accused to get her treated. Except PW6 who
is the father of Munni Devi, other witnesses have denied that Munni Devi
was suffering from any mental illness and professed ignorance about any
legal notice given to PW6 for the treatment of Munni Devi.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the
statement of PW6 in paragraph No.7 of his cross-examination which reads
as under:
"7- d`".kk Hkxr vkSj muds csVs dh vksj ls gesa odkyru uksfVl nh x;h Fkh esjh
csVh dks bZykt djkusA esjh csVh dk bZykt caxky esa buds llqjky okys djok;s
FksA"
11. English translation of the said paragraph is as under:
"7. A legal notice was served upon me on behalf of Krishna
Bhagat and his son for treatment of my daughter. They (in-laws)
got my daughter treated at Bengal."
12. In the first place, from the aforesaid statement of PW6 it
cannot be inferred that Munni Devi was suffering from any mental illness.
No evidence was laid by the defence to show the kind of illness Munni Devi
was suffering from. Neither the doctor gave his evidence nor any document
relating to her illness was laid in evidence by the accused. In the
cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence could not elicit
6 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012 with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012
any material information and the aforesaid statement of PW6 in paragraph
No.7 of his cross-examination does not establish that Munni Devi was
suffering from any mental illness. The defence set up by the appellants is
palpably false, falsity of which is established by the medical evidence.
13. Dr. Dilip Kumar Bhagat was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon
at Sadar Hospital, Dumka at the relevant time. He was one of the members
of the Medical Board constituted by Civil Surgeon-cum-CMO, Dumka
which conducted autopsy over the dead body of Munni Devi. Dr. Dilip
Kumar Bhagat who was produced as PW7 in the trial has testified in the
Court that there was swelling found on the frontal side of neck of Munni
Devi and on dissection congestion of underlying tissues of her neck was
observed. His further observation is that trachea and both lungs of Munni
Devi were found expanded and congested. These observations particularly
swelling on the front part of the neck clearly established that Munni Devi
was strangulated to death by throttling.
14. PW7 has rendered a categoric opinion that death of Munni Devi
was caused due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. Now if we have to
accept the defence plea that Munni Devi caught fire during cooking, it
remains completely unexplained how the aforesaid injuries were found on
her dead body. If not absurd, it is a highly imaginative and a superfluous
plea that a mentally sick woman has committed suicide by throttling herself.
Furthermore, this is no body's case that Munni Devi has committed suicide
by hanging herself in her matrimonial home and, in fact, no such plea was
taken by the accused in the trial. The presence of swelling on the neck and
postmortem burn injuries over the dead body clearly established that Munni
Devi was first killed and thereafter her dead body was set on fire.
15. There is no difficulty in accepting submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants that merely on the basis of the postmortem report
and opinion of the doctor an order of conviction for murder cannot be
recorded. But the decision in "Nagendra Sah" which has been heavily relied
upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is distinguishable at least on
two facts (i) the burn injuries over the dead body of Munni Devi were not
antemortem rather postmortem injuries and; (ii) there are other evidences
7 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012 with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012
such as ill-treatment of Munni Devi in her matrimonial home and demand of
a motorcycle, golden chain and Rs. 20,000/- from her.
16. We find that the prosecution has laid sufficient evidence to
prove motive for the crime - though, whether all the appellants shared the
same motive is a separate issue which we would deal with a little later. PW1
Sanjay Kumar Bhagat, PW2 Jai Prakash Bhagat, PW3 Kundan Kumar
Bhagat, PW4 Ram Prakash Bhagat, PW5 Sanyukta Devi and PW6 Shankar
Prasad Bhagat are relative witnesses who were intimately related to Munni
Devi by relation. PW1 and PW2 who are cousin brothers of the deceased are
not specific in their evidence on demand of dowry. PW1 has stated that a
demand for Hero Honda motorcycle, golden chain and Rs. 20,000/- for
business was made by the in-laws of Munni Devi. PW2 would speak about
marpit committed by Sandeep Bhagat, Sanjay Bhagat and Krishna Prasad
Bhagat with Munni Devi. The other four witnesses have, however, levelled
specific allegations against all the appellants as regards demand of Hero
Honda Motorcycle, golden chain and Rs. 20,000/- from Munni Devi. But
these witnesses have stated that the aforesaid demands were not made from
them or in their presence by the appellants. These witnesses have stated that
Munni Devi would tell them her miseries in her matrimonial home and that
is how they could know about demand of dowry by the appellants. The case
of the prosecution is that a panchayati was held in the village to resolve the
dispute but none of the prosecution witnesses has testified in the Court that
he was present in the panchayati.
17. The evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses on demand
of dowry is, therefore, in the realm of hearsay evidence which cannot be
made the basis for conviction. But the aforesaid evidence of the witnesses
are not liable to be discarded completely rather the prosecution can use such
evidence to prove that Munni Devi made such statements about her
ill-treatment and demand of dowry. No doubt correctness of the statement
made by Munni Devi to the prosecution witnesses cannot be tested and
therefore cannot be used as substantive evidence, still, the circumstance that
Munni Devi made complaints about her ill-treatment at the hands of the
appellants may be taken note of. However, as noticed above, the prosecution
evidence is not consistent on the role played by all the appellants in making
8 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012 with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012
demands of Hero Honda motorcycle, golden chain and Rs.20,000/-, rather
the prosecution evidence is quite unsatisfactory insofar as the appellants in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012 are concerned.
18. The prosecution witnesses have deposed in the Court that when
they reached the matrimonial house of Munni Devi her mother-in-law was
present in the house. It has also come in the evidence of PW6 that the
husband and father-in-law of the deceased were doing their separate
business. It is quite surprising that the prosecution witnesses have failed to
reveal name of the person who gave information about death of Munni Devi,
and, we find that there was a suggestion made by the defence that the
father-in-law made a call to give information about death of Munni Devi.
According to the prosecution witnesses, Suresh Kumar Bhagat who is the
cousin brother of Munni Devi is the person who received a call on his
mobile phone about her death but he has not been produced by the
prosecution in the trial. The defence version is that the father-in-law of
Munni Devi gave information about her death and that is the reason a
suggestion was given to PW6 in this regard but he has simply showed his
ignorance whether it was the father-in-law of Munni Devi who gave the first
information about her death.
19. The prosecution case is that the appellants were residing
together at village Kharauni and all of them were involved in committing
murder of Munni Devi. In their examination under section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the appellants have simply denied the circumstances
put to them that in the morning of 11.08.2009 at around 07:30 AM at village
Kharauni they strangulated Munni Devi and set her on fire. But there is no
evidence on record to establish that all the appellants were living together
under the same roof which is the matrimonial house of Munni Devi. A
husband would naturally live together with his wife but no such inference
can be drawn about other relatives of a married woman that they were also
living together with her. The appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012
were not required to establish that Munni Devi was not living with them and
it is for the prosecution to establish such facts.
20. The evidence of Investigating Officer is therefore quite relevant
to find out whether he could collect materials to justify the charge against
9 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012 with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012
the other appellants on a premise that they were living together with Munni
Devi at the relevant time. But the Investigating Officer who is examined as
PW8 does not say anything on this aspect. The neighbours of the appellants
who could have provided valuable information to the Court were not
examined by the prosecution and the witnesses who were residing at distant
places in another village could not have said about the circumstances
surrounding the death of Munni Devi. A demand for motorcycle and
Rs.20,000/- for carrying a business are referable to the husband who in law
would be presumed to be living with his wife unless he shows from the
prosecution evidence or leads independent evidence to establish otherwise -
may be by preponderance of probability - but no such presumption can be
raised against the other appellants. We find that there is dearth of cogent
evidence on physical participation of the other appellants in murder of
Munni Devi or at least to show that they abetted or instigated commission of
the crime. Merely because a charge has been framed against them they
cannot be convicted taking resort to section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
21. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, the learned APP has referred to the
judgments in "Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra" (1992) 3 SCC 106 and
"State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Singh" (2014)12 SCC 211 to submit that
failure of the appellants to offer any explanation to the incriminating
materials produced by the prosecution against them would bring in section
106 of the Indian Evidence Act on the scene and the appellants cannot
escape the liability of committing murder of Munni Devi.
22. In every criminal trial, before the onus shifts to the accused by
operation of section 106 of the Evidence Act the prosecution must establish
a prima-facie case against the accused. In "Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The
State of Ajmer" AIR 1956 SC 404, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that
section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to undermine the well
established rule of law that, save in a very exceptional class of cases, the
burden is on the prosecution and never shifts.
23. We further find that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"Nagendra Sah" plain denial by Krishna Prasad Bhagat, Sanjay Kumar
Bhagat, Kanchan Devi and Kiran Devi in their examination under section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not provide an additional link
10 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012 with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012
in the chain of circumstances which might have provided the missing link to
complete the chain.
24. In "Nagendra Sah" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
as under:
"24. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those
cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts
from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the
existence of certain other facts which are within the special
knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper
explanation about the existence of said other facts, the Court can
always draw an appropriate inference.
25. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the
accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of
burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act,
such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of
circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if
the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by
the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to
discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not
relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the
defence is no ground to convict the accused."
25. Another circumstance which was held against the appellants is
their abscondance from the house. In law, abscondance is considered a weak
piece of evidence and, moreover, abscondance of an accused would provide
a link in the chain of circumstances only when it is accompanied by criminal
intent. Out of five accused, Kanchan Devi, mother-in-law was found in the
house and, as noticed above, there is no material on record to show that
Sanjay Kumar Bhagat, Krishna Prasad Bhagat and Kiran Devi were also
residing in the same house. A person may be found absconding from his
house due to fear or on account of apprehension of arrest and that is what
appears to have happened in the present case.
26. In "Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B." (2011) 11 SCC 754 the Supreme
Court has held as under:
"31.......It is a settled legal proposition that in case a person is
absconding after commission of offence of which he may not even
be the author, such a circumstance alone may not be enough to
draw an adverse inference against him as it would go against the
doctrine of innocence. It is quite possible that he may be running
away merely on being suspected, out of fear of police arrest and
harassment. (Vide Matru v. State of U.P., Paramjeet Singh v. State
of Uttarakhand and Dara Singh v. Republic of India.) Thus, in view
of the law referred to hereinabove, mere abscondence of the
appellant cannot be taken as a circumstance which gives rise to
draw an adverse inference against him."
11 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012 with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012
27. A husband who does not deny his presence at the scene of
occurrence around the time his wife has died cannot remain silent and he
must offer some explanation as regards the circumstances how his wife has
suffered homicidal death. There is sufficient evidence against Sandeep
Kumar Bhagat to show that he acted with a motive and was found
absconding from his house. That apart, the circumstances in the case clearly
indicate that he inflicted various acts of harassment and torture upon his
wife and finally on 11.08.2009 committed her murder in the house.
28. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court can draw an adverse
inference against him by virtue of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Though there was a charge framed under section 304-B/34 IPC, the learned
trial Judge has not returned any finding on this issue and convicted the
appellants under section 302/34 IPC. We find that the charge under section
304-B IPC would not sustain for the simple reason that there is no evidence
to establish that immediately before her death Munni Devi was put to
harassment and torture by the appellants in connection to demand of dowry.
29. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we hold that the
prosecution evidence against the appellants, namely, Krishna Prasad Bhagat,
Sanjay Kumar Bhagat, Kanchan Devi and Kiran Devi is not sufficient to
hold them guilty under section 302/34 IPC and, accordingly, their conviction
and order of sentence for the aforesaid offence passed in Sessions Trial
No. 26 of 2010 are set-aside.
30. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012 is allowed.
31. The charge of murder is, however, proved against the appellant,
namely, Sandeep Kumar Bhagat.
32. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012 is dismissed.
33. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, the learned APP states that the appellants,
namely, Sandeep Kumar Bhagat, Krishna Prasad Bhagat, Sanjay Kumar
Bhagat, Kanchan Devi and Kiran Devi who have served sentence of more
than 9 years are in custody.
34. Accordingly, the appellants, namely, Krishna Prasad Bhagat,
Sanjay Kumar Bhagat, Kanchan Devi and Kiran Devi [in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 807 of 2012] shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in
connection to any other case.
12 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012 with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012
35. In the result, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807 of 2012 is allowed.
36. IA No. 5805 of 2019 stands disposed of.
37. Let lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned,
forthwith.
38. 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: 28th September, 2021
Sharda/S.B.-AFR
