Subodh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
2023 Latest Caselaw 3975 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.99 of 1999 (P)
                              ----------

[Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.03.1999 passed by Sri Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in connection with Sessions Case No.90 of 1997 / 215 of 1998, arising out of Mahagama P.S. Case No.8 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. No.82 of 1997]

Subodh Kumar Singh ... Appellant

-Versus-

The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) ... Respondent

----------

PRES ENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

----------

For the Appellant          : Mr. Prabhat Singh, Amicus Curiae
For the State              : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
                                 ---------

By the Court :      Heard the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 15.03.1999 passed by Sri Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned 1 st

Additional Sessions Judge, Godda (as His Lordship was the then) in connection

with Sessions Case No.90 of 1997 / 215 of 1998, arising out of Mahagama P.S.

Case No.8 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. No.82 of 1997, holding the appellant,

Subodh Kumar Singh guilty of the offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of

the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for

life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous

imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal

Code. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under Section 364 of the

Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian

Penal Code were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the

informant Asha Kumari, the sister of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy,

alleging therein that on 02.02.1997 at about 2:10 P.M, her brother had gone to buy

groceries. Thereafter, he did not return. Suspicion was raised against the present

appellant that he had kidnapped the brother of the informant with an intention for

committing his murder.

4. The present case was initially instituted under Section 364 of the Indian

Penal Code. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a

well outside Urga Nagar Colony. Accordingly, the case was converted under

Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted

charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and

364 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance, Sri Alok Kumar Sen Gupta,

learned S.D.J.M, Godda committed this case to the Court of Sessions as it was

exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

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

documentary evidence.

7. Rukmani Devi P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. She has supported the

prosecution case.

8. Raghunath Goswamy P.W.2 is the father of the deceased. He has also

supported the prosecution case.

9. Asha Kumari P.W.3 is the informant of the case. She has supported the case

as made out in the written report. She has proved the written report which is

Exhibit-1. She has proved the application submitted by her to the D.C., Godda

dated 11.3.1997 which is Exhibit-2. She has proved her signature on her statement

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is Exhibit-3.

10. Vijay Kr. Chauhan P.W.4 and Vinod Kumar Sonuwal P.W.5 are the hostile

witnesses.

11. Dr. Ashok Kumar P.W.6 and Dr. Manto Kumar Tekriwal P.W.7 had

performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Rajesh Kumar

Goswamy. Dr. Ashok Kumar P.W.6 has proved the postmortem report which is

Exhibit-4.

12. R. B. Nanhe P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has proved

the inquest report which is Exhibit-7.

13. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. The defence is general denial of the occurrence and false

implication.

14. On the basis of the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge,

Godda held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no eyewitness

to the occurrence. None of the witnesses have stated that the deceased was last

seen with the appellant. It was further submitted that the appellant has been

convicted only on the basis of suspicion. On these grounds, it was prayed that

appellant may be acquitted of the charge.

16. Learned Spl.P.P has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove

its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt for committing murder

of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy. Accordingly, it was prayed that this

appeal be dismissed.

17. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove

its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

In order to come to the aforesaid findings, it has to be determined:-

(i) Whether the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy had died homicidal death ?

(ii) Whether the appellant had abducted and caused homicidal death of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy?

18. R. B. Nanhe P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated

that on 07.02.1997, the dead body of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy was

recovered. He prepared the inquest report, which is Exhibit-7.

19. From perusal of the inquest report, it transpires that there was swelling on

the neck of the deceased and there was abrasion on his arm.

20. Dr. Ashok Kumar P.W.6 has stated that on 8.2.1997, he had performed the

postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Goswamy. He has

stated that the dead body was swollen and decomposed. He has further stated that

no evidence of any anti-mortem injury was found on the dead body of the

deceased. He has also stated that no definite opinion can be given about the cause

of death of the deceased.

21. From perusal of the postmortem report which is Exhibit-4, it transpires that

the finding in the postmortem report regarding the cause of death of the deceased

is fully corroborated by the oral testimony of the deposition of Dr. Ashok Kumar

P.W.6, recorded during the trial.

22. The dead body of the deceased was recovered from a well. In the

postmortem report, it has been stated that the deceased had died about a week

prior to the date of his postmortem. The postmortem was conducted on

07.02.1997. As per the statements of Rukmani Devi P.W.1, Raghunath Goswamy

P.W.2 and Asha Kumari P.W.3, the deceased went missing on 02.02.1997. It is

apparent that the deceased died after 4-5 days from the time when he went

missing.

23. The prosecution has been able to show that the dead body of the deceased

was recovered from a well, so, it cannot be said that the deceased died a natural

death. However, in absence of any specific finding as there was no mark of anti-

mortem injury on the person of the deceased, it cannot be said beyond all

reasonable doubts that the deceased had died homicidal death. The death of the

deceased may be suicidal or accidental.

24. From the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses namely Rukmani

Devi P.W.1 the mother of the deceased, Raghunath Goswamy P.W.2 the father of

the deceased and Asha Kumari P.W.3 the sister of the deceased (informant), it

appears that after the deceased went missing, they ran from pillar to post to get

his missing report registered. Their entire evidence is based on this fact that they

had approached several persons to get his missing report registered. None of the

witnesses have stated that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. Only

suspicion has been raised that due to previous enmity, the appellant must have

abducted and caused the homicidal death of the deceased. However, strong

suspicion cannot be a ground for holding a person guilty for committing an

offence.

25. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the

prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant for abducting

the deceased or for committing his murder and thereafter, concealing his dead

body in order to screen himself from legal punishment.

26. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment of conviction

and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is set aside.

27. The appellant is on bail. He along-with his bailers are discharged from the

liabilities towards the bail bond.

28. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.

29. Before parting, we will like to record my appreciation for Mr. Prabhat

Singh, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, who has very

ably assisted this Court during the hearing of the case. The Member Secretary,

JHALSA is directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- as remuneration to him.

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 16/10/2023 N.A.F.R./BS