Jharkhand High Court
Chotu Keshri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 November, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.556 of 2003
With
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.564 of 2003
[Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 31.03.2003,
passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No. III, Chatra, in S.T.
No.48 of 2002 (arising out of Chatra (Sadar) P.S. Case No.45 of 2001)].
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.556 of 2003
Chotu Keshri, S/o Suraj Sao Keshri, R/o Jatrahibagh, Chatra, P.S. & District-
Chatra. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.564 of 2003
Pradeep Ram, S/o Late Bajo Ram, R/o Jatrahibag Lakalkunwa, P.S. Sadar,
District- Chatra. .... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand. ..... Respondent
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
.....
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, APP
Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, APP
.....
JUDGMENT
14.11.2024.
By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the
State.
1. Appellants are before this Court in appeal against the judgment of conviction
and sentence under Sections 302,201/34 of the IPC.
2. Informant Ganga Ghashi (P.W.9) is the husband of the deceased. As per FIR
the informant and his wife (deceased) were going to attend marriage ceremony
in Village at 11:00 p.m. on 23.03.2001. They stayed for some time in the shop
of Sundar Sao and had drink with the appellants Chotu Kesri and Ramesh
Paswan. The informant thereafter proceeded to attend the marriage party and
requested appellant- Chotu Keshri [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.556 of 2003] to
accompany his wife and drop his wife to his house at night. Next morning
when he returned from the house of Ghani Bhuiyan after attending the party, he
did not find his wife at home. When he enquired from his wife about Chotu
Kesri, he told him that he had left his wife at the road and did not accompany
her up to her house. It is alleged that all of them consumed liquor and thereafter
when the informant left her, the deceased was also made to consume liquor and
thereafter she was taken by appellants, Chotu Keshri and others and after
committing rape, she was murdered and her body was concealed.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report of the informant, the Police
instituted First Information Report being Chatra (Sadar) P.S. Case No.45 of
2001.
4. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet and cognizance was
taken and the appellants were put on trial for the offence punishable under
Sections 376 (G), 302, 201/ 34 IPC.
5. In order to prove the case, altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, P.W.1 (Mostt Shanti), P.W.2 (Kishori Ghanshi), P.W.3 (Kedar
Ram), P.W.4 (Shakuntala Devi), P.W.5 (Ramesh Paswan) P.W.6 (Rohit
Jaiswal), P.W.7 (Shankar Lal), P.W.8 (Rajendra Prasad), P.W.9 (Ganga
Ghanshi), P.W.10 (Dr. Narendra Kumar) and P.W.11 (I.O.- Jawahar Prasad,
ASI) and relevant documents have been adduced into evidence and marked
as Exhibits.
6. After going through the evidence of each of the witnesses, we find that the
entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance
which is against the appellants is that they were last seen with the deceased.
There is sketchy evidence that appellants were last seen with the deceased
before she went missing.
PW 1 (Mostt Shanti) had stated that at night when she was in her
Varandah, she heard that these two appellants and the deceased were
chatting. There was a road side hotel opposite to place where appellants and
deceased were seen and several persons were dining there.
PW 2 (Kishori Ghanshi) had also seen this deceased in the company
of the appellant Chotu Keshri in front of Maharaja Hotel. This witness, PW
2 also stated that his brother did not return at night in his house and his wife
was missing. In cross-examination, he contradicts the statement of PW 1 and
stated that the hotel was closed at night.
7. P.W.2, who being an important witness has stated that the Police had taken
these two appellants in custody and on pointing out of these two appellants,
the dead body of the deceased was recovered within the campus of school.
This witness in paragraph-25 has stated that when the police recovered the
dead body, he was not present there.
8. Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W11 and he also states that on
pointing out of Chotu Kesari, the dead body was recovered. But surprisingly
we find no confessional statement of any of the appellants on record.
Further, even if, it has not been reduced into writing, the Investigating
officer should have narrated the sequence of events leading to the recovery
of the dead body on the disclosure statement of the accused persons. There is
no such narration.
9. Further, informant has been examined as P.W.9 and he in examination-in-
chief has stated that he came to know from the villagers that his wife was
murdered and her dead-body has been concealed in garbage bin at the
Vivekanand School. He further states that he had gone to the said school and
had seen the dead-body and thereafter went to the police station and
submitted his report. This completely demolishes the prosecution version
that on the basis of confessional statement of these appellants, the dead body
of the deceased was recovered. Thus, one of the important circumstances put
forth by the prosecution in support of the confession of the appellants that
the dead-body was recovered based on the confessional statement of these
appellants gets demolished.
10. As observed earlier, the case is based on the circumstantial evidence. In a
case which is based on circumstantial evidence, each of the circumstances
needs to be proved and the chain has to be completed. In this case, one of the
chains which was the recovery of dead-body based on confessional
statement of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution and thus,
chain is not complete.
11. Allegation of gang rape has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court. We
are of the view that on the sketchy evidence of last seen and absence of
motive for offence, the appellants cannot be convicted in this case, as the
chain of circumstances is not completely proved to unerringly point to their
guilt.
12. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set
aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges. Appellants are already on
bail, as such, sureties are discharged for the liability of their bail bonds.
Both the aforesaid Criminal Appeals are allowed.
Pending, I.A(s)., if any, stands disposed of.
Let T.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court
concerned at once.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 14.11.2024.
sandeep/pawan
