Jharkhand High Court
Ranjana Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2018
with
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 63 of 2018
(Against the judgment of acquittal dated 30th November 2017 passed by the learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 625 of 2014)
------
Ranjana Devi, wife of Late Sanjiv Prasad @ Late Sanjiv Kumar Prasad;
resident of -26 Kali Sthan Road, P.O. & P.S.- Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi
...... Appellant[ in both the cases]
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sumant Kumar @ Suman, son of Sri Rajendra Prasad, resident of Kali
Sthan Road, P.O. & P.S.- Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi
...... Respondents [ in Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2018]
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Viren Kumar @ Chhotu, son of Late Rampad Mahto, resident of
village-Nayatoli, Old Hazaribag Road, P.O. & P.S.- Lower Bazar, District-
Ranchi
3. Sanju Hemrom @ Suman, son of Kalua Hemrom, resident of Kanta
Toli, Chandani Maidan, P.O. & P.S.- Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi
4. Pankaj Jaiswal, son of Late Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal, resident of
Church Road, Devi Mandap, P.O. & P.S.- Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi
...... Respondents [ in Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 63 of 2018]
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Advocate
[ in both the cases]
For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, APP
[ in both the cases]
-------
Oral Order
th
29 March 2023
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2018 is directed against the
acquittal of Sumant Kumar @ Suman in Sessions Trial No. 625 of 2014 and
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 63 of 2018 has been filed to challenge the
acquittal of Viren Kumar @ Chhotu, Sanju Hemrom @ Suman and Pankaj
Jaiswal.
2 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No.11 of 2018 with
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 63 of 2018
2. These Acquittal Appeals have been filed by Ranjana Devi who
is the wife of the deceased Sanjiv Prasad @ Billu.
3. In Sessions Trial No. 625 of 2014, Sumant Kumar, Manish
Dhan, Viren Kumar, Sanju Hemrom and Pankaj Jaiswal were put on trial
on the charge under sections 302/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and
section 27 of the Arms Act.
4. Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Mukesh Singh who is a friend of
Sanjiv Prasad is the informant of this case.
5. According to him, upon receiving a phone call on 24 th June
2014 at 08:45 AM from Sanjiv Prasad that he has suffered firearm injury he
went towards Oxford School and found his friend near a pond in injured
condition. Thereafter, Sanjiv Prasad was taken to Sadar hospital on a Tempo
with the help of local villagers and then RIMS at Ranchi and thereafter to
Apollo Hospital. The informant has also stated that Sanjiv Prasad told him
that he has seen the miscreants who was of average built and he can identify
him if produced before him. This statement was given by Mukesh Kumar
Singh before SI Gupteswar Ram of Chutia Police Station at about
14:00 hours at Abdul Razzak Memorial Hospital (Apollo Hospital).
6. Chutia P.S. Case No. 122 of 2014 was accordingly lodged
against unknown. However, in course of the investigation complicity of the
aforementioned accused persons transpired and they were sent up for trial
vide charge sheet No. 165/ 2014 dated 30th September 2014.
7. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses out
of whom PW1 is the mother, PW 2 is the sister, PW 3 is the son and PW5 is
the wife of the deceased. The prosecution has set up a story of animosity
through these witnesses on the ground that Sumant Kumar @ Suman had
eloped with cousin sister of the deceased and solemnized marriage with her
against the wishes of the deceased and other family members.
8. PW 1, PW2, PW5, PW8 and PW9 are hearsay witnesses; PW7,
PW10 and; PW 12 were declared hostile and; PW13 is a formal witness.
9. The learned trial Judge has on appreciation of the evidence of
the related witnesses come to a conclusion that the related witnesses and
PW9 have developed a story in the Court of animosity between Sumant
Kumar @ Suman and the deceased.
3 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No.11 of 2018 with
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 63 of 2018
10. The learned trial Judge has marshalled the prosecution evidence
in the following manner:
"10. ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
From the testimony of PW1, 2, 5, 6 & 8 it appears that they tried
to connect accused Sumant in this case due to old enmity that
Sumant and cousin sister of deceased had solemnized their
marriage after elope and a quarrel with friend of Sumant and
friend of deceased Mukesh (PW9) prior to six months of the
occurrence. The witnesses have also stated that Sumant had
threatened the deceased for dire consequences six months prior
to the occurrence. But there is no any proof on record that the
deceased or any family member of the deceased had even
informed the police. The IO himself contradicted their statement
before him in this regard. PW5 Ranjana Devi denied any
statement before the I.O., that Sumant had threatened her
husband for dire consequences. Likewise, there is no medical
proof on record that after sustaining bullet injury the deceased
was able to speak usually. If he was able to speak then his
statement or dying declaration should have been recorded by the
Doctor or by the Magistrate or by the IO himself which could
form the basis of conviction. But the IO had not got his dying
declaration recorded either by the Doctor or by the Magistrate.
Apart that, the IO himself has contradicted these statement of
the witnesses by saying that the after sustaining fire arm injury
Sanjiv Prasad was not able to speak or to make statement. In
this way, the prosecution could not establish beyond reasonable
doubt that deceased after receiving fire arm injury was in
position to speak.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... "
11. In course of the investigation, a countrymade pistol loaded with
live cartridges of .315 caliber and two live cartridges were recovered from
the possession of Manish Dhan. Two live cartridges of 0.315 caliber and two
live cartridges of .303 caliber and a mobile phone with SIM No.840961661
were found in possession of Sanju Hemrom. Accordingly, Chutia P.S. Case
No. 135 of 2014 was registered against them on 10th July 2014.
12. This is the case of the prosecution that Manish Dhan suffered a
confessional statement and has admitted before the Investigating Officer that
he fired at Sanjiv Prasad from the recovered countrymade pistol.
13. PW11 has proved the FSL report vide Ext. 3 &3/1 and has
stated in the Court that the bullet recovered from the dead body of Sanjiv
Prasad marked as Ext. "AI" was fired from the countrymade pistol marked
as Ext. "AII" which was found in possession of Manish Dhan on 10th July
2014.
4 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No.11 of 2018 with
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 63 of 2018
14. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence produced by the
prosecution, the learned trial Judge has held Manish Dhan guilty under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
15. Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, the learned APP has drawn our
attention to the order dated 30th April 2019 by which Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 227 of 2018 filed by Manish Dhan has been dismissed as abated on his
death.
16. The learned trial Judge has however acquitted Sumant Kumar,
Viren Kumar, Sanju Hemrom and Pankaj Jaiswal (hereinafter referred to as
respondents) of the charges framed against them under sections 302/34 and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
17. Through these Acquittal Appeals, the wife of the victim has
challenged the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge that all the
prosecution witnesses except the doctor and the Investigating Officer are
hearsay witnesses and there is no evidence worth any credence to convict
the respondents.
18. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, the learned counsel for the appellant
has contended that PW3 who is the son of the deceased is an eyewitness and
his evidence in the Court gets sufficient corroboration from the medical
evidence and the other prosecution witnesses.
19. Having examined the materials on record, we have formed an
opinion that no interference is required with the judgment dated
30th November 2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 625 of 2014 by which the
respondents in these Acquittal Appeals have been acquitted by the trial
Court.
20. Notwithstanding PW3 being an eyewitness, the learned trial
Judge has rightly held that the other witnesses are hearsay witness. This is a
matter of record that PW7, PW10 and PW12 did not support the prosecution
and they were declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. We have
perused the evidence tendered by these witnesses and find that no part of
their testimony can be used by the prosecution to support its case against the
acquitted accused persons.
21. PW3 who was accompanying his father in the morning of
24th June 2014 has clearly stated before the Court that the accused who fired
5 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No.11 of 2018 with
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 63 of 2018
at his father had covered his face. This witness has again admitted in his
cross-examination that the face of the accused was covered with
black-coloured handkerchief. This witness could not identify the assailant is
a fact which gets corroboration from the fardbeyan of PW9 who did not
disclose before SI Gupteswar Ram that Sanjiv Prasad had told him name of
the assailants. PW9 has made improvements in the Court when he said that
on the way to hospital Sanjiv Prasad informed him that Sumant Kumar had
planned assault upon him and the learned trial Judge has rightly refused to
accept this part of the statement of PW9 because in his fardebyan he did not
disclose name of the assailants. We further find that PW 5 who is wife of
the deceased has admitted in the Court that she did not tell the Investigating
Officer that there was animosity between Sumant Kumar and her husband.
Therefore, the learned trial Judge has refused to accept evidence of the
prosecution witnesses as regards animosity between Sumant Kumar and the
deceased primarily for the reason that none of the prosecution witnesses had
made statement before the Investigating Officer on the point of animosity
with Sumant Kumar.
22. The learned trial Judge has discussed the prosecution evidence
in the following manner:
"10.... ... ... ... .... ... ... ... ...
The I.O. claimed to recover Rs. 30,000/- from Viren on the basis
of his confessional statement and Rs.13,500/- from Monu Kumar
Ram for committing murder of Sanjiv Prasad. They also
confessed that Sumant Kumar had informed them about
movement of deceased from his house and also that Sanju had
though sustained bullet injury but not died. But except their
confessional statements there is no any other corroborative
evidence on record in this regard. No P.W. has proved recovery
of aforesaid money from their possession. He received the
C.D.R. and proved it as Ext. X for identification, but admittedly,
the C.D.R. is neither attested by any official of the technical cell
nor any forwarding memo of technical cell has been attached
with the case diary, The I.O. has also not recorded the statement
of mother of accused Chhotu and father of accused Sanju
Hemrom in whose favour the mobiles were issued. He did not
record statement of Tempo driver by which the injured was taken
to hospital. The Tempo/auto driver could have been the best
witness to explain the facts as to who was with the deceased
while taking him to the hospital and whether deceased was in
position to talk but as the prosecution has withheld him for the
reasons best known to it, the prosecution story becomes wholly
doubtful. He also denied to verify conversation between
informant and Sanju Prasad after sustaining bullet injury. He
further denied seizure of aforesaid phones or its C.D.R. The
6 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No.11 of 2018 with
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 63 of 2018
accused were not placed in the Test Identification Parade. The
I.O. offered very weak explanation that he did not get T.I.P.
conducted because the witness Atul Kumar was only 10 years
old. Perusal of record reveals that the investigation has been
haphazard, cursory and perfunctory. It thus appears that there
are material improvements and contradictions in the evidence of
PW1,2,4,5,6,7,8 & 9 and they are not the eye witnesses rather
they developed the prosecution story and improved their
versions during trial in the Court regarding threatening by
accused Sumant and statement of deceased after sustaining
injury that it was Sumant who got him shot. However, they did
not whisper complicity or involvement of other accused persons
in this occurrence. It also creates doubt in prosecution case
regarding involvement of other accused persons. The law is
well-settled that suspicion, however, strong cannot be the basis
of conviction. Bearing in mind the principle of innocence that
"let the thousands of culprits may go free but no innocent should
be punished"when I approach the facts of the present case, I am
of the firm view that the P.W.s 1,2, 3,4,5,6,7,8 & 9 are not
credible. Situated thus, it is difficult to hold that the aforesaid
circumstances which have no evidentiary foundation, is
sufficient for convicting the other accused persons except
Manish Dhan."
23. Through a threadbare scrutiny of the evidence tendered by the
prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that
the prosecution has failed to establish that the cause of occurrence was
animosity between Sumant Kumar and the deceased. We also do not find
any reason to differ with the aforesaid finding by the learned trial Judge.
We further find that there is absolutely no evidence that the respondents
entered into a criminal conspiracy with Manish Dhan in furtherance of
which Sanjiv Prasad was murdered.
24. No doubt the prosecution witnesses had nurtured an
apprehension about involvement of Sumant Kumar on account of the past
incident - he had eloped with cousin sister of the deceased; but suspicion
howsoever strong cannot be a ground to record conviction of the accused
and that too for an offence of murder.
25. Having thus examined the materials on record, we do not find
any ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal rendered in Sessions
Trial No. 625 of 2014 in favour of Sumant Kumar, Viren Kumar, Sanju
Hemrom and Pankaj Jaiswal and, accordingly, Acquittal Appeal (DB)
No. 11 of 2018 and Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 63 of 2018 are dismissed.
26. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned
7 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No.11 of 2018 with
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 63 of 2018
forthwith.
27. 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: 29th March, 2023
Sharda/S.B.-N.A.F.R
