Against The Judgment Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 658 Jhar

                                                         Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.900 of 2013

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.900 of 2013
                             ---------

[Against the judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2013 and order of sentence dated 30.01.2013 passed by Sri Deepak Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in connection with S.T. Case No. 280/2011, arising out of Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 31/2011, Corresponding to G.R. No. 692/2011.] Arvind Raman ..... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent

---------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Spl.P.P.

---------

C.A.V. on 02.11.2022. Pronounced on 08.02.2023.

1. Heard Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Spl.P.P for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2013 (sentence passed on 30.01.2013) passed by Sri Deepak Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in connection with S.T. Case No. 280/2011, arising out of Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 31/2011, Corresponding to G.R. No. 692/2011, holding the appellant Arvind Raman guilty of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

3. The case of the prosecution was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Chandramoli Saran Srivastava alleging therein that his niece namely Ritu Sinha @ Sweta Sinha was married to the appellant Arvind Raman. They resided in a flat at Gangotri Complex since year 2010. Since last four days the informant could not know the where about of his niece, as their flat was locked from outside. On 07.04.2011 at about 9:30 am, he went to their flat. Foul

smell was coming out from the flat, which was locked from inside. The informant tried to open the flat with help of the neighbours. In the meantime, police also arrived there and broke open the door. After going inside, dead bodies of his niece Ritu Sinha @ Sweta Sinha and that of her son were found lying on the bed in one of the room. The dead bodies of both the deceased persons were in highly decomposed state. In the adjacent room, the appellant Arvind Raman was found lying there with injury on his wrist. The informant suspected that the appellant after murdering his wife and son 3 to 4 days ago had come to the flat on 07.04.2011, and with the intention to divert the attention from himself injured his wrist. On query from neighbours, it transpired that the appellant had after locking his flat on 04.04.2011 gone somewhere and in the night of 06.04.2011 returned to his flat and locked himself from inside.

4. After investigation, Police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, committed the case to the court of sessions on 21.07.2011, as it was exclusively triable by sessions court.

5. Charge was framed against the appellant on 16.01.2012 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of charge were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.

Chandramoli Saran Srivastava P.W.-1 is the informant of this case, he has adduced the fardbeyan in evidence, which is exhibit-1, he has also adduced the production cum seizure list, which is exhibit-

2. He has supported the prosecution case as made out in the fardbeyan.

Smita Roy Choudhary @ Riya P.W.-2, Pinky Biswas P.W.-3 and Anju Tiwari P.W.-4 are neighbours of the appellant. They have supported the fact of recovery of dead bodies of the deceased persons from the flat of the appellant.

Vimla Bai P.W.-5 is the maid, who worked in the flat of the appellant. She saw the dead bodies of the deceased persons.

Girish Chandra Srivastava P.W.-6 is the father of the deceased Ritu Sinha @ Sweta Sinha. He has supported the prosecution case.

Abha Srivastav P.W.-7 is the mother of the deceased Ritu Sinha @ Sweta Sinha, she has also supported the prosecution case.

Dr. Lalan Choudhary P.W.-8 performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Ritu Sinha @ Sweta Sinha and Swar aged about 6 years. He has proved the postmortem reports of both the deceased persons, which are exhibit-3 series.

Surendra Thakur P.W.-9 is the police officer who reached the place of occurrence and broke open the door of the flat of the appellant.

Neeraj Kumar Mishra P.W.-10 is investigating officer of this case. He has proved the pagination on the fardbeyan, which is exhibit

-1/1, he has proved the formal F.I.R., which is exhibit-4. He has proved the confession of the appellant, which is exhibit-5. He has further proved the place of the occurrence, which happens to the flat of the appellant.

7. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Defence is general denial of occurrence and false implication.

8. On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary available on the record, the learned court below held the appellant Arvind Raman guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

9. Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that wife and son of the appellant were murdered by unknown persons in his absence. When he returned home he saw their dead bodies and on being devastated, attempted to commit suicide. He further submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the appellant for committing murder of the deceased persons. On these ground it was prayed that the appellant Arvind Raman be acquitted of the charge and this appeal be allowed.

10. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Spl.P.P. has submitted that the appellant after committing murder of his wife and son locked the flat from outside and after two days returned to his flat and in order to divert his attention from himself and to screen himself from legal punishment slashed his wrist. It was further submitted that if the appellant was innocent, his natural conduct would have been to inform the police immediately about the occurrence, which is not the case. It was finally submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant Arvind Raman beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, this appeal be dismissed.

11. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts for committing murder of his wife Ritu Sinha @ Sweta Sinha and son Swar.

12. In order to come to the aforesaid facts and finding, It has to be ascertained

(i) whether the deceased Ritu Sinha @ Sweta Sinha and Swar son of the appellant died due to homicidal death.

(ii) if so, whether the appellant Arvind Raman has caused their homicidal death.

13. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.4.2011, the appellant Arvind Raman after committing murder of his wife Ritu Sinha @ Sweta Sinha and his son Swar in his apartment, locked them from outside and left the place of occurrence. In the evening of 06.04.2011, he returned home locked himself from inside and in order to divert attention from himself he slashed his wrist, so as to give a colour that the deceased persons were murdered by unknown persons and when he came to know about the occurrence he attempted to commit suicide.

In order to prove that both the deceased Ritu Sinha @ Sweta Sinha and Swar died homicidal death. Prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.

Chandramoli Saran Srivastava P.W.-1 has stated that when the flat of the appellant and deceased persons were broke open, he

went inside and saw the decomposed bodies of the both the deceased lying on the bed. Smita Roy Choudhary @ Riya P.W.-2, Pinki Biswas P.W.-3 and Anju Tiwari P.W.-4 all have stated that on 07.04.2011 between 10:00 pm to 10:30 pm, flat of the appellant Arvind Raman was broke open. When they went inside they found the dead bodies of both the deceased persons Ritu and Swar in highly decomposed condition. Foul smell was emitted from their dead bodies.

Vimla Bai P.W.-5 is the maid of the deceased, she has also stated that on 07.04.2011 at 10:00 pm, the door of flat of the appellant was broke open and dead bodies of both the deceased were found in highly decomposed condition.

Surendra Thakur P.W.-9 is the police officer, who had gone to the flat of the appellant on 07.04.2011 and broke open the door. He has stated that the door of the flat was locked from inside. After breaking the door, he went inside and saw dead body of a lady and child in highly decomposed condition lying in one of the room.

14. From perusal of the oral testimony Dr. Lalan Choudhary P.W.-8, it transpired that he has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Ritu Sinha female aged about 32 years wife of the appellant and found following ante- mortem injuries:- (A) Abrasions:-

(i) 4.5 cm x 3cm over right side of forehead.

(ii) 3 cm x 1 cm over right side outer and lower part of right eye.

(iii) 4 cm x 2.5 cm over left eye upper lid.

(iv) 3 cm x 3 cm over right side under surface of chin.

(v) 6 cm x 2 cm over left leg upper part medial aspect.

(vi) 11 cm X 3.5 cm over right forearm and adjoining cuboital region.

(vii) 7 cm x 6 cm over left elbow upper part.

(viii) 12 cm x 5 cm over right forearm posterior surface.

(ix) 4 cm x 1 cm over ulnar border of right hand. On Dissection: Skull: frontal and mid skull contused 18 cm x 13 cm and perito occipital scalp contused 14 cm x 20 cm.

Opinion: death occurred as a result of head injury. All above injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.

Accordingly to this witness her death occurred due to head injuries and death took place 3 to 5 days ago. The postmortem was conducted on 08.04.2011.

On the same day he conducted postmortem on the dead body of a male child namely Swar aged about 6 years and found following ante-mortem injuries:-

(A) Abrasion :-

(i) 4 cm x 1 cm over right inguinal region.

(ii) 2 cm x 1 cm over left thigh upper part medial aspect.

(iii) 4 cm x 4.5 cm over left elbow upper part.

(iv) 3 cm x 2 cm over left hand.

Dissection: Skull (whole scalp) including right temporalis muscle Contused. Brain semi liquefied and contused all over. Viscera preserved for chemical analysis.

Opinion: cause of death: death occurred as a result of head injury. All the above injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.

Accordingly to this witness the dead body of both the deceased were in highly decomposed condition and death of deceased Swar also occurred due to head injuries. According to him death took place 3 to 5 days ago.

From the perusal of the postmortem report of both the deceased persons, which are exhibit-3 series, it is evident that the finding in the postmortem report is corroborated by ocular account of Dr. Lalan Choudhary P.W.-8 regarding the injuries sustained by deceased persons and the cause and time of death.

15. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that both the deceased Ritu Sinha @ Sweta Sinha and Swar died due to head injuries. There were multiple injuries found on their person. These injuries cannot be self inflicted or accidental. Accordingly, we come to the finding that both the deceased Ritu Sinha @ Sweta Sinha and Swar died homicidal death.

16. The case of the prosecution that the appellant Arvind Raman had committed murder of his wife Ritu Sinha @ Sweta Sinha and his son Swar.

Chandramoli Saran Srivastava P.W.-1 has stated that occurrence took place in April 2011. On 06.04.2011 he went to the flat of his niece Ritu Sinha, her flat was locked from outside, on query from the neighbours, nobody could give a satisfactory reply. On 07.04.2011 at 9:30 am, he again went there. People had assembled outside, as foul smell was coming from the flat. In the meantime, police came and broke open the door. When he went inside, he found dead bodies of his niece and her son lying on the bed in one of the room and the appellant was found in the adjacent room. He had sent SMS to his cousin Navneet Saran stating that, "Swar and Ritu is no more and I am going to commit suicide. There is no Dainik Bhaskar sorry". He has stated that the appellant has murdered his wife and son due to financial constraint. At the time of occurrence he was unemployed.

He has been cross-examined at length. In the cross-examination it has stated that police had reached place of occurrence before they reached there. When he reached the place of occurrence people were breaking open the door on the flat.

Smita Roy Choudhary @ Riya P.W.-2, Pinky Biswas P.W.-3, Anju Tiwari P.W.-4 and Vimla Bai P.W.-5 all have stated that on 07.04.2011 they saw the dead bodies of both the deceased and they also saw Arvind Raman in the flat. he had slashed his wrist.

Girish Chandra Srivastava P.W.-6 and Abha Srivastav P.W.-7 both have made similar statement that on coming to know about the occurrence they came to Jamshedpur. They cremated the deceased persons. They have stated that the appellant had sent a SMS to his cousin Navneet Saran at about 7:00 pm on 07.04.2011, informing that his wife and son are no more and he is going to commit suicide he won't be able to see the next addition of Dainik Bhaskar.

Surendra Thakur P.W.-9 is the Police Officer, who had gone to the flat of the appellant on 07.04.2011 and broke open the door.

He has stated that the door of the flat was locked from inside. After breaking the door, he went inside and saw dead body of a lady and child in highly decomposed condition lying in one of the room The facts which emerge from the aforesaid discussion is that:- (i) Dead bodies of the deceased Ritu Sinha @ Sweta Sinha and Swar was recovered on 07.04.2011. The postmortem of the deceased persons were conducted on 08.04.2011. Dr. Lalan Choudhary P.W.-8 had fixed the time of death to be between 3 to 5 days approximately from the date of postmortem. From the medical evidence, it transpires that death of the deceased persons had taken place between 3rd to 5th of April, 2011.

(ii) From the statement of the Chandramoli Saran Srivastva P.W.-1, it is evident that the deceased persons were not answering his calls since last 4 days i.e. from 3 rd of April, 2011. When he first went to visit the flat of the appellant and the deceased persons, it was locked from the outside. Subsequently on 07.04.2011 the flat was found to be locked from inside. Door of the flat was broke open and dead bodies of both the deceased was found lying in one of the room and the appellant was found in adjacent room with his wrist slashed.

(iii) Death of the deceased persons had taken place on 03.04.2011. The appellant was found absconding for 3 to 4 days. The flat was locked from outside. Now the question is, "Who had locked the flat"? The answer will be, "the person who had the keys of the flat." Next question will be,"who had the keys of the flat?" The answer will be, "the person who had opened the flat and locked himself from inside."

(iv) The conduct of the appellant after the occurrence is also very highly suspicious. Had he been innocent? He would have informed the police immediately, as soon as he returned home.

(v) The occurrence has taken place in the flat of the appellant. Both his wife and son had died a homicidal death. So the mischief of Section 106 of the Evidence Act will also come into play. The

appellant had to explain as to how his wife and son were murdered. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has just denied the occurrence. This is the last link in chain of the circumstances against him.

17. The circumstances of this case points out towards the fact that it was the appellant and only he, who had committed the murder of his wife and son due to financial constraints, as he was unemployed at the time of occurrence. There can be no other explanation. The learned court below has considered the entire gamut of the case and has rightly come to the finding of guilt of the appellant. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not require any interference.

18. This appeal is dismissed.

19. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:08.02.2023 Jay/-NAFR