Sugul Singh Alias Shiv Lal Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3629 Jhar

              Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 167 of 1994(R)
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.1994 and order of
sentence dated 16.08.1994 passed by Smt. Shakuntala Sinha,
learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) in Ses-
sions Trial No. 243 of 1992]
                             ...........

Sugul Singh alias Shiv Lal Singh ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent ...........

For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, A.P.P.

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ...........

C.A.V. on 10.08.2022 Pronounced on 12.09.2022

Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.1994 and order of sentence dated 16.08.1994 passed by Smt. Shakuntala Sinha, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) in Sessions Trial No. 243 of 1992, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.

3. This appeal has been preferred by Sugul Singh alias Shiv Lal Singh and Mogo Singh but on account of the death of the appellant no. 2 Mogo Singh during the pendency of this appeal the same had abated as against the appellant no. 2 as would appear from the order dated 10.08.2022 and, therefore, the present appeal is restricted to the appellant no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the appellant).

4. A fardbeyan of Ranjit Chick Baraik was recorded on 22.09.1991 in which it has been stated that on 17.09.1991 his son-in-law, wife and daughter had gone to Saude market. In the market, his son-in-law had met with Sugul Singh and Mogo Singh

-2- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 167 of 1994(R)

and all of them started roaming in the market. From Saude market all of them started for Village -Karakel and when they reached Karakel, it was evening. The brother-in-law of the informant started having liquor with Sugul Singh and Mogo Singh. The wife and daughter of the informant left them and came back home. When the informant asked the whereabouts of his son-in-law, they were told that he was having liquor with Sugul Singh and Mogo Singh at Karakel. At about 11:00 P.M. when Sugul Singh and Mogo Singh came back, they were questioned about the son-in-law of the informant to which they disclosed that he after having liquor had left before them. The informant had started searching for his son-in-law from that day onwards but no trace could be found. He had a suspicion that Sugul Singh and Mogo Singh had committed the murder of his son-in-law and caused disappearance of the dead body.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Rania P.S. Case No. 23 of 1991 was instituted against Sugul Singh and Mogo Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code were added.

5. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S. T. No. 243 of 1992. Charge was framed under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case.

7. P.W.1 (Kunti Devi) has deposed that about one and half years back on Tuesday she had gone to Saude market along with her mother and husband. Her husband had met Sugul and Mogo in the market. While they were returning home her husband had wine which was offered by Sugul and Mogo. When she insisted her

-3- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 167 of 1994(R)

husband to go home Sugul and Mogo asked them to go ahead while offering her husband wine. She left her husband and went home but he did not return. She, thereafter, disclosed the entire matter to her father. On hearing this, her father went in search of her husband. She and her father had gone to the house of Sugul and Mogo at 11:00 p.m. in search of her husband but both expressed ignorance about the whereabouts of her husband. On repeated queries, Sugul and Mogo had disclosed that they had murdered her husband with a knife and had dumped the dead body in Koel river. Before the marriage of this witness, Sugul had expressed his desire to solemnize marriage with her. The marriage could not be solemnized because both belong to different castes. Prior to the incident, Sugul had forcibly taken her to Ranchi in absence of her husband for the purpose of keeping her with him. She has stated that when Sugul had gone out to drive a rickshaw she had managed to come back to her husband.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she did not love Sugul. Sugul had forcibly kept her for 1- 2 days. Before her marriage, Sugul used to regularly express his desire to keep her. Her parents were not aware about these incidents. Sugul had forcibly taken her to Ranchi about two months prior to the occurrence. She had stayed for a day at Ranchi and on the next day, she had managed to flee away and come back to her husband. She has stated that her husband was aware about such incident. When Sugul and Mogo had disclosed about committing the murder of her husband no one was present and she had disclosed about the said fact to her family members when she came back home. She never felt uneasy when her husband was left with Sugul and Mogo as both belonged to her village.

8. P.W.2 (Somrat Devi) has deposed that about one and half years back she, her daughter and son-in-law had gone to Saude market where Mogo and Sugul had met her son-in-law. Mogo and Sugul were drinking wine at Karakel and her son-in-law was also invited to have wine. She and her daughter left for her house but her son-in-law did not come back. She had disclosed everything

-4- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 167 of 1994(R)

to her husband after which her husband went in search of her son-in-law to the house of Mogo and Sugul but they had denied to have any knowledge regarding the whereabouts of her son-in- law. She has stated that her husband had made a search for her son-in-law but no trace could be found. Her daughter had also gone to the house of Sugul in search of her husband. Sugul had wanted to marry her daughter but they did not agree because of caste issues.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that her husband had searched for her son-in-law for 4-5 days and thereafter information was given to the police.

9. P.W.3 (Ranjit Chick Baraik) is the informant of the case. He has stated that about one and half years back his wife, son-in-law and daughter had gone to the market but his son-in-law did not return. His daughter and wife had disclosed that all were returning home but his son-in-law, Sugul and Mogo started consuming Hadia at Karakel. His Son-in-law did not return at night. He had gone on the same night to the house of Sugul and Mogo in search of his son-in-law. Initially he could not meet them but later on Sugul and Mogo had disclosed that they have not seen him. He had also searched for his son-in-law in his village as well as in his place of work but no trace could be found. His daughter had also gone to the house of Sugul and Mogo in search of her husband and when she came back she has stated that Sugul and Mogo had disclosed about committing the murder of her husband and of throwing the dead body in Koil river. He has further stated that Sugul had wanted to keep his daughter and sometimes Sugul used to visit the matrimonial house of his daughter. The delay in instituting the case occurred because he was searching for his son-in-law.

His daughter had disclosed about the conversion she had with Sugul and Mogo on Saturday and thereafter the case was instituted.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had gone to the house of Sugul and Mogo in search of his son-in-law but he could

-5- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 167 of 1994(R)

not meet them and subsequently he had met them at Village - Belkidura where both were drinking wine. When he asked about his son-in-law both had stated that he had left for his house. His daughter did not go to the house of Sugul and Mogo from Tuesday to Saturday and he has further deposed that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized one and half years prior to the occurrence. He has expressed his apprehension that the love affair between Sugul and his daughter had continued even after one year of her marriage.

10. P.W.4 (Sohan Chick Baraik) had deposed that he had gone with his brother Ranjit Chick Baraik to Rania Police Station. The fardbeyan of his brother was recorded in which he as well as his brother had put their thumb impressions. The wife, daughter and son-in-law of his brother had gone to the market but his son-in- law did not return. His brother and sister-in-law had disclosed that when his sister-in-law and the daughter and son-in-law of his brother were returning home, the son-in-law stayed back at Karakel to consume wine with Sugul Singh and Mogo Singh.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that about 2 and ½ years back Sugul had expressed his desire to keep the niece of this witness.

11. P.W.5 (Banbari Lal Jaisawal) has identified the writing and the signature of A.S.I. Bakil Rathor in the First Information Report which has been marked as Exhibit - 1.

12. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he has denied about being involved in the incident.

13. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are no witnesses to the occurrence and only on the basis of suspicion, the appellant has been implicated. It has been submitted that no trace could be found of the son-in- law of the informant and merely because he was last seen with the appellant drinking wine the appellant could not have been convicted. According to Mr. Lal P.W. - 1 who is the wife of the deceased had a grudge against the appellant and therefore the

-6- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 167 of 1994(R)

false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out.

14. Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned A.P.P. has highlighted the surrounding circumstances to stress on the fact that the appellant had committed the murder of the son-in-law of the informant and caused disappearance of his dead body. The appellant had a motive as he had forcibly kept the wife of the deceased with him and was also in regular touch with her.

15. We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the lower court records.

16. The gist of the allegations reveal that while returning from the market, the son-in-law of the informant started having wine with the accused persons who he had met on the way. The son- in-law of the informant did not return home and in spite of a search he could not be traced out leading to institution of the First Information Report.

17. In the present case admittedly there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the case of the prosecution is built on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, we have to seek out as to whether the chain of circumstances are complete in order to bring home the charge against the appellant. The deceased had gone to the market along with his wife (P.W. - 1) and mother in law (P.W.

-2). P.W. - 2 in her evidence has stated that her son-in-law was having wine with the accused persons but he did not return at night which led to a frantic search for him. She has also stated that the appellant had wanted to marry her daughter but the same could not materialize because of caste issues. So far as the evidence of P.W. - 1 is concerned, it appears that after the missing of her husband she had gone to the house of the appellant along with her father and on repeated quarries, disclosure was made that her husband has been murdered and his dead body was thrown in the Koil river. She has also deposed about the appellant taking her to Ranchi in absence of her husband and keeping her for a day or two before she managed to escape.

18. In cross-examination she has stated about staying at Ranchi with the appellant for a day before fleeing away and this episode

-7- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 167 of 1994(R)

had occurred two months prior to the incident. She has also stated about her husband being aware of the incident. P.W. - 3 has expressed his apprehension that the love affair between his daughter and the appellant had continued even after marriage.

19. A conjoint reading of the evidence of P.W. - 1, P.W. - 2 and P.W. - 3 would reveal about the appellant's inclination to keep alive his relationship with P.W. - 1. The evidence of P.W. - 2 and P.W. - 3 have coagulated the facts regarding the love affair existing between P.W. - 1 and the appellant. Though P.W. - 1 has alleged about the appellant keeping her forcibly for a day but the said act seems to have been met with utter nonchalance both by P.W. - 1 as well as her husband.

20. P.W. - 1 in her examination-in-chief has deposed that the accused persons had disclosed about committing the murder of her husband when she and her father (P.W. - 3) had confronted them regarding the whereabouts of her husband. However, in her cross-examination, she has stated that only she was present when such fact was disclosed by the accused persons. Such confession in absence of any recovery would not have any evidentiary value.

21. So far as the last seen theory is concerned, we may refer to the case of "Satpal versus State of Haryana" reported in (2018) 6 SCC 610, wherein it has been held as follow:-

"6. We have considered the respective submissions and the evidence on record. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence but only circumstances coupled with the fact of the deceased having been last seen with the appellant. Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly. But when it is coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation, or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Each case will therefore, have to be examined on its own facts for invocation of the doctrine."

22. The conduct of the appellant reveals that he had not absconded and when P.W. - 1 and P.W. - 3 had confronted him

-8- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 167 of 1994(R)

he was at his house. There also seems to be absence of any enmity as even after the marriage of P.W. - 1 with the deceased, the appellant used to visit the matrimonial house of P.W. - 1. There has been no disclosure of any threats and the cordial relationship between all the players seem to have been highlighted by P.W. -1 who in her cross-examination has stated that she was never apprehensive when her husband sat down to have wine with the appellant while she left him at the said place.

23. The learned trial court has based on its conclusion on the purported enmity the appellant was having with the deceased because of his love affair with P.W. - 1 but it has not elaborated or explored the enmity which has noted above seems to be absent when the incident had taken place.

24. The circumstances enumerated hereinabove leads us to come to a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and accordingly while allowing this appeal the judgement of conviction dated 11.08.1994 and order of sentence dated 16.08.1994 passed by Smt. Shakuntala Sinha, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) in Sessions Trial No. 243 of 1992 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is, hereby, set aside.

25. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, 12.09.2022 Umesh/NAFR