Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Kumar Das Son Of Sri Nandlal Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 598 of 2014
WITH
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 366 of 2014
----
[arising out of Judgment of Conviction and
Order of Sentence dated 23rd April, 2014 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Sessions Trial
No.11 of 2013]
In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 598 of 2014
Pradeep Kumar Das son of Sri Nandlal Das, resident of Village
Kolbindi, PO PS Pindrajora, District Bokaro.
... Appellant
-versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
----
In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 366 of 2014
1. Nandlal Das son of Late Jadu Das
2. Dulali Devi wife of Sri Nand Lal Das
Both residents of Village Kolbindi, PO PS Pindrajora, District
Bokaro.
... Appellants
-versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahni, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI SUBHASH CHAND, J.
----
JUDGMENT
Per Ananda Sen, J. The appellants have preferred these appeals against the
Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 23rd April, 2014 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2013, whereby the
appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Pradeep
Kumar Das has further been held guilty for offence punishable under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under
Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 3 (three) years and fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under
Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant Pradeep Kumar
Das has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3
(three) years and fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. Appellant Pradeep Kumar Das in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 598 of 2014
is the husband of the deceased whereas, the appellants, namely, Nand Lal
Das and Dulali Devi, in Cr. Appeal No.366 of 2014 are father-in-law and
mother-in-law, respectively, of the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are no
materials to convict these appellants. Charge has been framed under Sections
302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, but the prosecution has failed to prove that these appellants have
caused death of the deceased. As per the prosecution case, the same is
admittedly based on circumstantial evidence, but none of the circumstances
have been proved by the prosecution, neither the chain of circumstances was
complete, thus, these appellants' conviction is bad. As per him the only ground
in this case for convicting the appellants is suspicion, that some mobile call
was received by the deceased, before the deceased left home, and recovery
of slipper from the place of occurrence. These two circumstances are too weak
circumstances to convict the appellants.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that it has come in evidence
that mobile call was received by the deceased and the said call was made by
her husband. On receiving the said call, she left her house, but did not return.
Later on body of the deceased was recovered where the slipper of the
husband of the deceased (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 598 of 2014) was
also found, which led to the definite conclusion that these appellants had
committed murder of the deceased. Further, he submits that there is
consistent evidence that the appellants were torturing the deceased and
money was being demanded from the informant, as cost of treatment of the
deceased who fell ill earlier. These circumstances leads to the only conclusion
that it is the husband, who has committed murder of the deceased.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned A.P.P. for the State and have also gone through the records and the
entire evidence.
6. Prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant,
Mukteshwar Das, who happens to the father of the deceased. As per the
fardbeyan of the informant, on 06.09.2012, he solemnized marriage of his
daughter with Pradeep Kumar Das. After marriage, his daughter started living
with her in-laws. Her husband used to assault her. About 2 months ago, her
husband Pradeep Kumar Das, mother-in-law Dulali Devi assaulted her due to
which she received injury on her left wrist. About 8 months ago, his daughter
gave birth to a child in Nilam Hospital for which Pradeep demanded
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) but he gave Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two
Thousand). After that Pradeep, his father Nandlal Das, mother Dulali Das,
cousin Mihir Das started assaulting, quarreling with his daughter. Four days
earlier to the date of occurrence, the in-laws left his daughter to his house. On
05.09.2012 in the evening his daughter received a call on her mobile and she
left the house saying that she was going to attend nature's call, but she did not
return. The informant presumed that Pradeep (husband) might have called her
to meet. After half an hour, when they started searching her when the mobile
was found switched off. However, they searched her at night and also in the
morning, but could not find her. At about 2 p.m. Gunaram Das told him about a
dead body lying in Jamtal. When the informant reached there, he found his
daughter dead having incised wound on her chin and neck and also found a
pair of slippers which he identified to be that of his son-in-law Pradeep. He
also found another pair of slippers, which he identified to be that of his
daughter.
7. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Chas (M) Police
Station Case No.113 of 2012 was registered for offences punishable under
Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Police took up investigation
and on completion of the investigation, filed chargesheet on 23.10.2012.
Cognizance of the offence was taken and case was committed to the Court of
Sessions. Charges against the appellants were framed on 20.02.2013.
Appellants Pradeep Kumar Das, Nandlal Das and Dulali Devi were charged for
the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and offence under
Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Pradeep Kumar Das was
further charged for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Charges, so framed, were read over and explained to the appellants, to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined altogether
11 witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Tulsi Das @ Sudam Das, P.W.2 Dr. Bikash
Kumar, P.W.3 Rajesh Kumar Das, P.W.4 Prakash Kumar Das, P.W.5
Mukteshwar Das (informant), P.W.6 Gunaram Das, P.W.7 Satish Das, P.W.8
Hemla Devi, P.W.9 Nunu Deo Rai, P.W.10 Mainual Ansari and P.W.11 Rajdeo
Singh.
The prosecution also produced the following documentary
evidence, which were marked exhibits: -
Exhibit 1 Postmortem report of the deceased Chanchala Devi
Exhibit 2 Signature of Mukteshwar Das on fardbeyan
Exhibit 2/1 Fardbeyan
Exhibit 3 Inquest Report
Exhibit 4 Seizure List
Exhibit 5 Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit 6 CDR of Mobile No.8292359253
Exhibit 6/1 Certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act with report
of Sim No.8292359253
The prosecution also produced the two pairs of slippers which
were marked Material Exhibit I to I/3.
The defence did not examine any witness in support of their
defence. However, following documents were produced which were marked
exhibits in this case: -
Exhibit A Photo of Dulali Devi on photocopy of application to
purchase Airtel Sim
Exhibit A/1 & Signature of Dulali Devi on photocopy of application to
A/2 purchase Airtel Sim
Exhibit B Original marks sheet of Pradeep Kumar Das of JAC,
Ranchi
Photocopy of Sulahanama papers were also produced which were
marked 'X' for identification and photocopy of application to purchase Airtel
Sim in the name of Dulali Devi was marked 'X/1' for identification.
9. P.W.1 Tulsi Das @ Sudam Das has stated that he knows the
deceased, who is her cousin. She was married on 09.05.2011 with Pradeep
Kumar Das. They had a son out of this wedlock. Son was born through a
cesarean operation for which his uncle had given Rs.4,000/-, but the in-laws of
the deceased were demanding Rs.20,000/- for this. For the remaining amount,
deceased used to be abused and assaulted. Such assault took place 5-7
times. He stated that there was a compromise also in this regard. He has
identified the agreement which was marked 'X' for identification. About a
month prior to the death, appellant Pradeep Kumar Das took the deceased to
Ram Mandir in a marriage ceremony and on the same day he wanted to take
the deceased to the house of groom side to which the deceased did not agree,
due to which the appellant Pradeep Kumar Das left her in midway and went to
his home. On the same day evening appellant Pradeep Kumar Das and Dulali
Devi had gone to the house of this witness's uncle and told him that his
daughter has fled. This witness has further stated that when they searched
Chanchala, one Deepak Kumar told them that he had seen the deceased
being assaulted by the appellant Pradeep Kumar Das. He further stated that a
phone call was received on the mobile phone of his uncle and on receiving the
said call, the deceased had left. When she did not return even after lapse of ½
hour, they started searching her, but could not trace her. They tried to contact
her over mobile, which was switched off. On 06.09.2012, when this witness
was in Chas, on that day at about 03.00 p.m. his son informed him over mobile
phone that dead body of the deceased has been found. On receiving such
information, this witness first went to the police station to inform about the
same and thereafter by a police vehicle reached at the place of occurrence.
The dead body of the deceased was lying there, which was almost in a naked
state. There were marks of blood spots on her neck, her blouse was torn. Near
the dead body a pair of gents slippers of Pasa Company and slippers of the
deceased were also found. The gents slippers were of the appellant Pradeep
Kumar. He identified the accused, who were present in Court. In cross
examination, he has stated that he cannot say as to who had paid the medical
expenses of surgery of the deceased. It is not correct that he had stated
before the police that when Rs.4000/- was given to appellant Pradeep for
treatment, but the same was thrown away.
P.W.2 Dr. Bikash Kumar is the doctor, who had conducted
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He found the following: -
On general examination, rigor mortis slight present, eyeclosed,
mouth partially opened, tongue outside about ½ cm.
Injury - (i) skin-excoriated, frontal region of the neck 6" x ½"
(ii) sharp cutting injury 1 ½" x 1/6" mid of the cheek.
On dissection, he found the skull intact, brain - NAD, neck -
extravasion of blood into the subcutaneous isse of neck, blood vessels
rupture, hyoid bone-larynx, trachea and thyroid catriledge fracture. Heart- right
chamber, semi- amount of blood and left chamber-empty. Lung, liver, spleen,
kidney- congested. Stomach contains digestive food. Bladder-empty, Uterus-
NAD and small in size.
The cause of death- asphyxia caused by throttling. Time since
death within 48 hours.
He has identified his handwriting and signature which was marked
Exhibit-1.
In cross examination, he has stated that he did not find any sharp
cut injury on the neck. No ligature mark was found on the neck and there was
mark of excuration.
P.W.3 Rajesh Kumar Das has stated that the deceased is his
cousin. She was married to appellant Pradeep Kumar on 09.05.2011. He
stated that in-laws of deceased used to assault the deceased for dowry. He
stated that on receiving information about the incident this witness went to see
the deceased. He saw the dead body of the deceased was lying in a naked
state. He saw mark of injuries. There were marks of blood clotting on her neck.
He stated that there were slippers at the place of occurrence, which were of
the appellant Pradeep Kumar. He identified the appellants in court. In cross
examination he has stated that earlier also there was a dowry case in police
station, but he does not remember the details.
P.W.4 Prakash Kumar Das has stated that the deceased was his
cousin. She was married to Pradeep Kumar Das on 9th May, 2011. He stated
that her in-laws started demanding for Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle on
which he had given his motorcycle. He stated that in-laws used to assault the
deceased. He stated that a son was born to the deceased through a cesarean
operation. He stated that in-laws used to demand from his uncle medical
expenses spent in the operation. He stated that on 5th at about 11.00 p.m. he
received information that the deceased is missing and not traceable. He stated
that he was informed that after a phone call from Pradeep the deceased had
left. On the next day when he went to the village, the villagers told him about a
dead body lying near a tree. He saw the dead body which was in a semi naked
state. There were marks of injuries caused by weapon. Slippers of the
deceased were lying there and when police came and searched, slippers of
Pradeep were also found there. His uncle told that he had given those slippers
to Pradeep. He has stated that he had put his signature on the inquest report.
He identified the appellants, who were in Court. In cross examination he has
stated that he has not lodged any missing report of the deceased.
P.W.5 Mukteshwar Das is the father of the deceased and he is
also the informant. He stated that his daughter was married to Pradeep Das on
09.05.2011. He stated that post marriage during first three months, his
daughter was happily residing in her matrimonial home, but thereafter her in-
laws started assaulting and torturing her. He stated that a son was born out of
the wedlock. He stated that when in-laws started demanding the medical
expenses of the child birth, he had paid Rs.2,000/- and had also purchased
medicines for his daughter and after few days the in-laws again started
assaulting and quarreling with his daughter. He stated that on 05.09.2012 at
about 06.00 p.m. Pradeep Das had called her over mobile phone, whereafter
his daughter had left and thereafter did not return. On the same day after 1-2
hours they searched his daughter, but they did not find her. On the next day,
Gunaram Das told that a Mahto lady informed that dead body of a girl is lying
near Andharteliya Jamtal. On receiving such information, he went there. He
saw the dead body of the deceased, which was almost in a naked state. There
were marks of injuries on the dead body. Slippers of the deceased were lying
near the dead body and one slipper of Pradeep Das were also lying nearby
and the other slipper of Pradeep Das was found in the bushes. He stated that
he had given those slippers to Pradeep Das. Inquest report was prepared by
the police on which this witness had put his signature. He also identified his
signature on the fardbeyan which was marked Exhibit 2. He identified the
appellants who were present in Court. In cross examination, he has stated that
earlier a compromise was entered into in Pindrajora Police Station regarding
the tortures meted out to his daughter. He stated that the mobile phone on
which his daughter had received phone call belongs to him. He stated that he
had stated before the police about the phone call but he does not remember
whether he has mentioned the same in the fardbeyan or not. In cross
examination he has further stated that his daughter had left the house saying
she is going for toilet.
P.W.6 Gunaram Das has stated on 06.09.2012 at about 2 - 2.30
p.m. he was informed by a Mahto lady that a dead body is lying near Jamtal.
He informed the same to the informant and later on it came to be known that
the dead body is of the deceased. In cross examination he has stated that
soon after being informed by the lady about the dead body, he had informed
the same to the informant.
P.W.7 Satish Das has stated that the deceased is his cousin. She
was married to Pradeep Das in 2011. A son was born out of their wedlock. The
expenses of the child's birth was borne by the in-laws of the deceased and
Rs.4,000/- was demanded from his uncle also. He stated that on 05.09.2012,
husband of the deceased had called her from her paternal home, upon which
mother of the deceased asked the deceased not to go and instead call her
husband there. He stated that the deceased left at about 06.30 p.m. and did
not return. After lapse of 1-2 hours they started search of the deceased but
despite searching during whole night, she was not found. On the next day at
about 12.00 noon villager Gunaram Das had informed that the dead body of
the deceased is lying near a tree. On such information, this witness along with
the informant and other villagers went to the place of occurrence and saw the
dead body of the deceased lying there. He identified the appellants who were
present in Court. In cross examination, this witness has stated that appellant
Pradeep Kumar Das had demanded Rs.21,000/- and Rs.4,000/- was given to
him. He has further stated that at the time when money was demanded in the
hospital, he was not there. He has further stated that he was not present at the
time when appellant Pradeep had called the deceased. This was informed to
him by his aunt (Mami).
P.W.8 Hemla Devi is the mother of the deceased. She has stated
that in-laws used to assault her daughter. 3-4 days prior to the occurrence,
mother-in-law of the deceased had left her to their home. She stated that it
was 06.00 p.m. when the deceased told her that her child is suffering from
fever and asked her to prepare chapattis. When she was making chapattis,
appellant Pradeep Das called the deceased whereafter she left. After some
time they started searching her and informed the villagers also. She stated that
on the next day Guna Ram informed that dead body of a lady is lying at
Jamtal. When she saw the dead body of the deceased, she became
unconscious. She stated that her grandson was born in hospital and who had
paid the medical expenses she does not know. In cross examination, she has
stated that she had not stated before the police that at 06.00 p.m. after
receiving the phone call from her husband, deceased had left for toilet. She
has further stated that she had not stated before the police that 10 days prior
to the occurrence, mother-in-law of the deceased had left her to their home.
P.W.9 Nunu Deo Rai is the Investigating Officer. He proved his
handwriting and signature on the fardbeyan of the informant, which was
marked Exhibit 2/1. He stated that he had received information at 15.40 hrs.
that dead body of a lady is lying near Jamtal Ranigaria. Sanha No.108 dated
06.09.2012 was recorded and informing the higher officers, he proceeded to
the place of occurrence with other officials. He stated that the villagers and
father of the deceased identified the dead body to be that of the deceased. He
described the place of occurrence and condition of the dead body. He stated
that slippers of the deceased and that of the accused were also found. He also
stated that there were marks of injury. He prepared the inquest report at the
place of occurrence, which was marked as Exhibit 3, having signature of
Mukteshwar Das and Prakash Kumar. Thereafter he sent the dead body for
postmortem examination. He also recorded statement of some of the
witnesses there. Seizure list of slippers was also prepared by him, which was
marked Exhibit 4 having signature of witnesses Satish Das and Manik Chand.
During investigation, he arrested Pradeep Kumar Das, Nand Lal Das and
Dulali Devi and after receiving postmortem report, he filed chargesheet
No.130/12 under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the
arrested accused. He also proved the formal FIR which was written by Arjun
Paswan, A.S.I. and signed by him which was marked as Exhibit 5. In his cross
examination, he stated that he had not sent the slippers to the Forensic
Science Laboratory. He stated that no weapon was recovered from the place
of occurrence or from the house of accused persons.
P.W.10 is Mainul Ansari. He stated that he has a shop at
Manarkundar. He used to sell Sim of Airtel. He identified the form regarding
purchase of sim by Dulali Devi which was marked as 'X' for identification.
Nothing important could be extracted from the deposition of this witness.
P.W.11 is Rajdeo Singh. He produced the material exhibits of
Chas Police Station Case No.113 of 2012 before the Court, which was handed
over to him by the S.I. He produced two pairs of slippers which were marked
as Material Exhibits I & I/3.
10. After closure of the evidence, appellants were examined under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied the
charges and claimed to be innocent.
11. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties and
after going through the evidence, by Judgment of Conviction and Order of
Sentence dated 23rd April, 2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2013, has
held the appellants guilty, convicted them and sentenced them for the offences
as detailed in paragraph 1 hereinbefore.
12. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellants
has preferred this appeal.
13. We have gone through the evidence and the entire records.
14. From the records, we find that there is no eye witness to the
occurrence. P.W.1 in his deposition before the Court at paragraph 2 has stated
that while searching Chanchala, one villager Deepak Kumar told them that he
has seen the husband Pradeep Kumar Das assaulting the deceased, but,
surprisingly, this villager Deepak Kumar has not been produced as witness
before the Trial Court. Thus, the statement given by the P.W.1 to that effect is
not believable. In fact no one has seen the deceased in the company of the
husband, after she left her house.
15. So far as the cause of death is concerned, the doctor held that the
death is caused by asphyxia, as a result of throttling.
16. P.W.9 is the witness, who had seen the dead body. He stated that
there was sharp cut injury on the neck and other parts of the body, which was
caused by sharp weapons. There was evidence of struggle at the place of
occurrence, where the body was found. Surprisingly, in cross-examination, the
doctor, who has conducted the postmortem report, stated that he did not find
any sharp cut injury on the neck. No ligature mark was also found and there
was mark of execration. This also creates a doubt about the prosecution case
and statement of P.W.9.
17. Father of the deceased, i.e., P.W.8 in the Fardbeyan has stated
that the deceased was using his mobile phone, when a call came and she left.
She did not disclose to him as to who made the call, but he suspected that it is
this appellant, who might have made the call. Mother of the victim stated that
while leaving the house, she had informed that her husband had called her.
CDR of Sim No. 8292359253 was obtained but that cannot be said to be
conclusive proof that through that Sim card deceased was talking with her
husband, as there are no corresponding CDR or electronic evidence with
respect to the other Sim, which was allegedly used by the husband of the
deceased. Further the mother of the deceased in her cross examination has
stated that she has not told the police that the deceased told her that the
phone call was from her husband, neither she told the police that the
deceased was left in her house by her mother-in-law.
18. Recovery of Slipper from the place of occurrence next to the dead
body cannot be said to be conclusive proof that the husband had committed
the murder of the deceased.
19. It has come in evidence of P.W.5 that there was matrimonial
discord for which a complaint was made with Pindrajora Police Station and
thereafter a settlement was arrived at. A compromise deed has been brought
on record, which is a photocopy, which was marked as 'X' for identification.
Contents of the said document was not proved as per the Evidence Act, Thus,
the same cannot be looked into.
20. Further, we find from the evidence, there is no specific allegation
and attribution against the father-in-law and mother-in-law, who are appellants
in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 366 of 2014. There are no materials to prove that there
was torture and assault made by the appellants.
21. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion of evidence, we find that the
only material is suspicion and recovery of slippers, which is alleged to be of
the husband of the deceased, from the place of occurrence. These are too
weak an evidence to convict the appellants for offences under Sections 302,
201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Further no one has seen the appellant
Pradeep Kumar Das in the company of the deceased. Though the informant
has stated about a villager seeing the deceased being assaulted by this
appellant, but that villager has not been produced in Court as witness. The
chain of circumstances are not complete to prove the guilt of the appellant.
22. Considering the evidence, we are inclined to hold that the
prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant by completing
the chain of circumstances. Thus, giving benefit of doubt, we are inclined to
allow this appeal. The impugned Judgment of Conviction and Order of
Sentence dated 23rd April, 2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2013 are
hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges against them.
They are directed to be released from custody forthwith if not wanted in any
other case.
23. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Let the Trial Court Records
be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.
I.A. No. 11304 of 2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 598 of 2014
24. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, learned counsel for the
appellants seeks permission to withdraw this interlocutory application.
25. This interlocutory application is, accordingly, dismissed as
withdrawn.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 01st May, 2024
Kumar/Cp-03
