Manoj Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3879 Jhar

                            1                   Cr. Appeal(DB) No.52/2023



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                Cr. Appeal (DB) No.52 of 2023
                                     ------

Manoj Kumar Gupta, aged about 30 years, son of Ram Sundar Gupta, resident of Village Bulka, P.O. & P.S. Ramna, District Garhwa .... .... Appellant Versus

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

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

------

        For the Appellant         : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
        For the State             : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
        For the Informant         : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate

                                  ------

06/Dated: 11.10.2023
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
I.A. No.7496 of 2023

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section

389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence dated 22.12.2022

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagar Untari, Garhwa, in

connection with Sessions Trial Case No.234 of 2021, arising out of

Ramna P.S. Case No.17 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1059

of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted

under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/-

and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo R.I. for one

year for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellant has further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years

along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to

further undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Sections

201/34 of the IPC.

2. The basis of the prosecution case is the written report of the

informant who is father of the deceased. The prosecution case in brief

is that on 22.02.2021 at about 4:00 pm informant's son Saddam

Hussain went somewhere along with his brother-in-law Sabbir Ansari

from his clinic Indian Hospital. Thereafter, his son didn't return home till

24.02.2021, whereas, his son-in-law was in the clinic on that day. When

informant inquiry about his son from his son- in-law (damad), then he

(son-in-law) told that he didn't know about his son. His son-in-law

Sabbir Ansari was working in partnership along with his son Saddam

Hussain. Earlier they (Sabbir Ansari and Saddam Hussain) have an

argument/bickering between them over some issues. He suspected

that his son-in-law Sabbir Ansari committed murder of his son Saddam

Hussain along-with his companion and disappearance/hide the dead

body.

3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the

appellant has submitted that it is a case where the prosecution has

miserably failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts.

Such argument has been made on the following grounds:

(i) The learned court below has failed to take into consideration that

P.Ws. 1 to 5 are the hearsay witnesses and they are related to the

family of the deceased and P.W. 7 and P.W. 11 are the formal

witnesses.

(ii) There was no motive for the appellant to kill the deceased and as

such the case of prosecution appears to be false and fabricated

because it is the settled position of law that motive is integral part or

force behind any commission of crime.

(iii) From the record, it is evident that the confessional statement as

made by the appellant, led to the recovery itself is in doubt inasmuch as

the information was already in the possession of the police through

another accused Sabbir Ansari.

Learned Senior Counsel put his reliance on the judgment, as

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka

Vs. M.V. Mahesh, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 353.

(iv) The confessional statement of the appellant as such leading to

recovery and thereafter, alleged seizure list was prepared, has not

bears the signature of appellant and in such scenario, the confessional

statement leading to recovery itself is in doubt. The so-called

confessional statement which is stated to be of the appellant, has no

evidentiary value.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has

submitted that it is a fit case where the sentence is required to be

suspended.

5. While, on the other hand, Mr. Saket Kumar, learned APP appearing

for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of

sentence on the following grounds:

(i) In this case, murder of deceased and disappearance of evidence of

the offence (conceal the dead body of deceased) are proved and after

murder of deceased appellant Manoj Kumar Gupta and another

accused Sabbir Ansari hide the dead body into river with intention to

disappearance of evidence of the offence.

(ii) The chain of circumstances in this case is complete and the motive

of this incident was clear as per evidence of deceased's father and

other family members including prosecution witnesses. As such, in this

case none of the prosecution witnesses creates any shadow on

prosecution case.

(iii) The Investigating Officer had arrested appellant Manoj Kumar

Gupta on 25.02.2021 at 01:40 hour and recorded his confessional

statement (Ext-6) on 25.02.2021 at 02:05 hours. As per confessional

statement of appellant, Manoj Kumar Gupta and another accused

Sabbir Ansari, the dead body of Saddam Hussain was recovered and

Kulhari/axe used in the commission of crime was also recovered in the

forest (Ext-7).

(iv) There is no signature of appellant Manoj Kumar Gupta on the

seizure list (Ext.-7) but only on this basis, the veracity of such statement

cannot be doubted, since the police on the basis of such statements

has recovered the dead body of the deceased and the axe which was

used in the commission of murder of the deceased. To fortify this limb

of argument, the learned APP has put his reliance upon the judgment,

as has been rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Golakonda Venkateswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

reported in (2003) 9 SCC 277.

(v) The Investigating Officer of the instant case has obtained C.D.R.

(Ext-13) of Mobile of the accused/appellant Manoj Kumar Gupta, by his

mobile no. 8340343622, and as per CDR, during 15.02.2021 to

18.02.2021, Sabbir Ansari and Manoj Kumar Gupta have always in

contact with each other.

6. Learned A.P.P, based upon the aforesaid argument, has submitted

that it is not a case where sentence is required to be suspended.

7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

finding recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned order as also

the testimony of the witnesses including the documents available in

Lower Court Records.

8. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of

parties and in order to examine as to whether in the given facts of the

case it is a fit case where sentence is to be suspended, deems it fit and

proper to refer the settled position of law regarding consideration to be

made at the time of suspension of sentence, as has been settled by

Hon'ble Apex Court in Preet Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in

(2020) 8 SCC 645 has held at paragraphs 32 and 35 as under:

"32. In Mauji Ram v. State of U.P. [ (2019) 8 SCC 17] , this

Court referred to Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. [

(2005) 7 SCC], Lokesh Singh v. State of U.P. [ (2008) 16

SCC 753] and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [ (2018) 3

SCC 22] and stated categorically that this Court had time

and again emphasised the need for assigning reasons

while granting bail.

35. There is a difference between grant of bail under

Section 439 CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and

suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC and grant

of bail, post-conviction. In the earlier case, there may be

presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental

postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be

liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the

case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an

exception, as held by this Court in Dataram Singh v. State

of U.P. [Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 :

(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 675] However, in case of post-

conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the

sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of

presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the

principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception

attracted, once there is conviction upon trial. Rather,

the court considering an application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima

facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors.

There should be strong compelling reasons for grant

of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by

suspension of sentence, and this strong and

compelling reason must be recorded in the order

granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) CrPC."

9. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment, that during considering

suspension of sentence under section 389 of Cr.P.C which is the post-

conviction stage, the presumption of innocence in favour the accused

cannot be available and at this stage, the Court's only duty is to see

that the prima-facie case is made out or not.

10. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Omprakash

Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Anr., (2023) 6 SCC 123 has

been pleased to hold that in cases involving conviction under Section

302 IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension

of sentence can be granted and while considering the bail the Court

should take care of the relevant factors like the nature of accusation

made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to

have been committed. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the

appellate court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of

Section 389 CrPC and try to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here

or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct

approach. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs are being

quoted herein under:

"31. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra [Vijay Kumar v. Narendra,

(2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1195] and Ramji Prasad v.

Rattan Kumar Jaiswal [Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal,

(2002) 9 SCC 366 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1197] , it was held by this

Court that in cases involving conviction under Section 302IPC,

it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of

sentence can be granted. In Vijay Kumar [Vijay Kumar v.

Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1195] , it was

held that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a

serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302IPC,

the court should consider the relevant factors like the

nature of accusation made against the accused, the

manner in which the crime is alleged to have been

committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability

of releasing the accused on bail after they have been

convicted for committing the serious offence of murder.

33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the

endeavour on the part of the court, therefore, should be to see

as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and

accepted by the trial court can be said to be a case in which,

ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. If the

answer to the abovesaid question is to be in the affirmative, as

a necessary corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately

the convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the

hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for

a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which

usually takes very long for decision and disposal. However,

while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the

convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into

is something palpable. To put it in other words, something

which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on

the basis of which, the court can arrive at a prima facie

satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The

appellate court should not reappreciate the evidence at

the stage of Section 389 CrPC and try to pick up a few

lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of the

prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach."

11. We are now proceeding to examine material available on record

and the rival submissions advanced on behalf of parties.

12. From perusal of the record, it is evident that in the instant case

on the basis of confessional statement of appellant Manoj Kumar

Gupta (Ext.6) and another accused Sabbir Ansari (Ext.4) an

axe/kulhari (weapon) used in the occurrence/crime and the dead body

of the deceased has recovered from underneath of the stone in the

forest and from the river bed respectively which was hidden by them.

13. For ready reference, the confessional statement of the

accused/appellant Manoj Kumar Gupta is being quoted as under:

" हमारा नाम मनोज कुमार गु ा उ करीब 31 वष, िपता- राम सु र राम, सा० चु ा, थाना-रमना, िजला-गढ़वा है । आज िदनां क 25.02.2021 को समय 02:05 बजे आप रमना थाना के पुिलस पदािधकारी के सम अपने घर ाम- बु ा, थाना-रमना, िजला - गढ़वा मे िबना िकसी, डर, भय या लोभन के यह जानते ए िक मेरे ारा िदया गया यह ीकारो ान ायालय मे मेरे िव होगा, अंिकत कराता हॅू िक हमलोग तीन भाई और दो बहन होते है ।

मेरी ार क िश ा, उ िव ालय, धुरकी से ई है । इं टरमीिडयट की िश ा शंकर ताप दे व् महादईया, नगर ऊँटारी से ई है तथा ातक टॉउनिशप कॉलेज, भवनाथपुर से पुरा िकये है । ातक उपरां त क ूटर की बेिसक पढ़ाई कर एक ु िडयों दु कान धुरकी थाना अ गत ाम सगमा मे खोला था। उसके बाद सगमा म दु कान बंद कर अपने ही गाँ व बु ा मे एक िकराना दु कान तथा कपड़ा दु कान चलाता ँ । आज से करीब 15 िदन मेरे ही गाँ व के सबीर अंसारी िपता-गु रलम करार असारी मुझे फोन कर कुछ पैसे की लोग कर रहा था। मेरे पास पैसा नही रहने के कारण म नहीं दे पाऊँगा बोला। पुनः दो-तीन िदन बाद फोन कर मुझसे पैसे की मां ग करने लगा। इस पर म बोला िक मुझे बोलेरो गाड़ी खरीदना है पैसा नहीं दे पाऊँगा । पुनः दो-तीन िदन बाद सबीर अंसारी से रमना बाजार मे िमला। इस पर सबीर अंसारी ारा मुझे बताया गया िक डॉ र स ाम सैन का गलत संबंध िकसी लड़की के साथ है तथा डॉ स ाम सैन की प ी शबनम बीबी से म िदलो जान से ार करता ँ । मै उसे अपनी प ी बनाना चाहता ँ । डॉ स ाम सैन का नजायज संबंध िकसी लड़की के साथ होने के कारण मेरी ेिमका तथा उसकी प ी शबनम बीबी से अ र छगड़ा होते रहता है जो मुझे नागवार लगता है । म चाहता ँ िक डॉ स ाम सैन की ह ा कर मेरे ार के रा े मे आये रोड़ा को साफ करना चाहता ँ ा ऐसा कोई है जो डॉ स ाम सैन की ह ा कर सकता है । इसके बदले मे मै उसे 50000/- पये दुं गा। िनकट भिव मे मुझे एक बोलेरो खरीदना था तथा मुझे पैसे की तंगी चल रही थी। इस वजह से 50000/- पये का लोभन म आकर डॉ स ाम सैन की ह ा करने का िज ा मै खुद ले

िलया तथा सािबर अंसारी से िमलकर एक ान तय िकये। डॉ स ाम सै न को पैसे िक आव कता थी इस बात को सबीर अंसारी बोला िक म िकसी तरह से डॉ साहब को कज पर पै से िदलाने के नाम पर तु ारे शराब भ ी जो डोंिगयवा नदी के िकनारे है वहाँ ले आएँ गे। वहीं हम और तुम िमलकर उसकी ह ा कर वहीं कही शव को छु पा दे ग। इस बात की जानकारी िकसी को नही हो पाएगीं। ान के अनुसार िदनां क 22.02.2020 को सबीर असारी मुझसे रमना बाजार म करीब 17:30 बजे िमला और मुझे 50000/- पये िदया। इस पैसे को मै अ खलेश िबयार एवं प ू िबयार के CSP के म जाकर मश: 30000/- एवं 20000 /- पये कुल 50000/- पये (पचास हजार पये) अपने SBI एकाउं ट सं ा 32497676462 मे जमा िकया। िजसके बाद म िजससे पुराना बोलेरो लेने के िलए बात िकया था उसके एकाउं ट मे प ीस-प ीस हाजार पये करके दो बार मे कुल 50000/- पये डाल िदया। उसके बाद मै ान के अनुसार बु ा मौड़ (पीपर तर) प ँ चा जहाँ सबीर अंसारी और स ाम सैन पहले से ही बु ा मोड के पासे के ए थे। उसके बाद ान के अनुसार मै, डॉ स ाम अंसारी से बोला िक कज का पैसा लेने के िलए बु ा डोिगयवा नदी थत जहाँ मेरा दा की भ ी है वहाँ चिलय । इस पर डॉ स ाम अंसारी चलने के िलए तैयार हो गये। तब मै और सबीर अंसारी, डॉ स ाम सैन को लेकर बु ा मोड से चल िदय। उसके बाद म तथा सबीर अंसारी, डॉ स ाम सैन को लेकर मोटरसाईिकल से लेकर ाम-बुलका थत पंचायत भवन तथा पोखरा होते ए ाम-बुलका जंगल मे थत डोिगयवा नदी के घने जंगल म थत झाझ (झरना) के पास ले गये। झरना के पास प ँ चने पर डॉ स ाम सैन बोले िक अरे हमलोग कहाँ आ गये सह झरना तो ब त गहरा है इतना बोलकर वह पीछे मुडे तब तक मै तथा सबीर अंसारी मौका पाकर ध ा दे िदये िजससे डॉ स ाम सैन झरना म नीचे िगर गये। हमलोग जब नीचे उतरे तो दे खे की डॉ स ाम सैन बेहोश है । िफर हमदोनो अपने साथ िलये कु ाडी से बारी-बारी से सर तथा चेहरा पर वार कर स ाम सैन की ह ा कर िदये। उसके बाद सा िमटाने के उददे से शव को वही च ान के अंदर खोह (गुफा) मे छु पाकर रख िदये। उसके बाद घटना म यु कु ाडी को वही बगल के च ान के चे छु पाकर रख िदये। उसके बाद डॉ स ाम सैन का मोबाईल तथा मोटरसाईिकल कर सबीर अंसारी, रमना के िलए चल िदया तथा मे अपने घर बु ा आ गया। मुझे पुिलस मेरे घर से िगर ार की है जहाँ मै अपने े ा से डॉ स ाम सैन की ह ा कर शव + को छु पा दे ने के अपराध को ीकार कर रहा ँ । मै डॉ स ाम सैन के शव को डोंगवा नदी थत

झाझ (झरना) के पास जहाँ मै तथा सबीर अंसारी छु पाकर रखे है वहाँ से शव को बरामद करवा सकता ँ तथा घटना म यु कु ाड़ी को भी बरामद करवा सकता ँ।

       यही हमारा    ीकारो            ान है । अपना    ान पढ़कर, समझ िलये तथा सही
       िलखा अपने    े        ा से अपना ह ा र बना िदये।"

14. The foremost argument which has been advanced on behalf of

appellant is that the confessional statement of the appellant as such

leading to recovery and thereafter alleged seizure list was prepared

has not bears the signature of appellant and in such scenario the

confessional statement leading to recovery itself is in doubt.

15. At this juncture the application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence

Act is required to be considered.

16. As per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the part of the

confessional statement is admissible, on the basis of which, the

seizure of weapon used in this incident, has been made.

17. It is settled proposition of law that for the application of Sec. 27

of the Act the statement must be split into its components and to

separate the admissible portion and only those components or

portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be

legal evidence.

18. It is also well settled principle that recovery must be of a fact

which was relevant to connect it with the commission of the crime for

which the accused has been charged and statement leading to

recovery of weapon only is admissible.

19. In the context of the argument as advanced by the learned

senior counsel, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Ahmed Shah Khan Durrani @ A.S. Mubarak S

Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine SC 251,

while relying upon the judgment passed in Prasad Ramakant

Khade v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 8 SCC 493 has observed as

under

"483. The submission made by Shri Mushtaq Ahmad that

the evidence of recovery cannot be relied upon for the

reason that the same did not bear the signature of the

appellant/accused (A-42), is not worthy of being accepted

[Vide: State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, (supra); and Prasad

Ramakant Khade v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 8 SCC

493 (para 8)]"

20. Further, in Golakonda Venkateswara Rao v. State of

A.P. [(2003) 9 SCC 277 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1904] Hon'ble Apex Court

reiterated the view and held that the discovery statement of an

accused leading to recovery of crime articles from concealed place,

even though the discovery statement and the recovery memo did not

bear the accused's signature, the fact of recovery from the well and

dug out was from the place which was pointed out by the appellant and

therefore, such discovery was voluntary. That the recovery was in

consequence to the information given was fortified and confirmed by

the discovery of the apparel worn and skeletal remains of the

deceased, therefore, the information and statement cannot be held to

be false.

21. Now coming back to the fact of the instant case, it is evident that

the Medical Officer (P.W.9) who conducted the autopsy on the dead

body of the deceased has also found the death was caused by shock

and hemorrhage on account of injuries caused by sharp cutting

weapon. As such the part of confessional statement of the appellant

was substantiated by the testimony of the doctor who has performed

the autopsy on the dead body of deceased.

22. Further, the Investigating Officer of the instant case has obtained

C.D.R. (Ext-13) of Mobile of the accused/appellant Manoj Kumar

Gupta, by his mobile no. 8340343622, and as per CDR, during

15.02.2021 to 18.02.2021, Sabbir Ansari and Manoj Kumar Gupta

have always in contact with each other.

23. Therefore, from the above facts, scrutinized oral and documentary

evidences available on the record, prima-facie indicates the

participation of accused/appellant in commission of murder of

informant's son Dr. Saddam Hussain (deceased) by axe/kulhari and

thereafter, his dead body was hide in a river bed.

24. Considering the same, we are of the view that it is not a case

where the sentence is to be suspended.

25. Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A. No.7496 of 2023

stands dismissed.

26. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice

the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.

27. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the appellant through Jail

Superintendent.

                                       (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)



      Rohit/-                             (Navneet Kumar, J.)