Jharkhand High Court
Ramendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2024
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1076 of 2006
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
12.07.2006 passed by learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Dumka (F.T.C.) in Sessions Case No. 126 of 200 2 ].
Ramendra Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Kedar Nath Singh,
resident of Village - Sewa, Police Station - Gidhor,
District - Jamuyee (Bihar).
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Purnendu Kr. Jha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
By Court: Heard Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned
A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Above named appellant has preferred this criminal
appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 12.07.2006 passed by learned
3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka
(F.T.C.) in Sessions Case No. 126 of 2002, whereby
and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for
the offence under Section 411 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay
a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a
narrow compass is that informant police officer heard
rumour about dead body at Matha Kesho More. On
this rumour, he proceeded for Matha Kesho More at
Hasdiya-Deoghar Road at 14:50 hrs. along with S.I.
Tarakant Thakur, where he found a dead body of
unknown person lying in a Arhar field, who has been
shot dead by firing on his back. He prepared inquest
report of the dead body which appeared to him that
some criminals shot him somewhere by fire on back
and has thrown the dead body.
4. On the basis of above information, FIR being
Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 126 of 1996 was registered
for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case
has submitted charge sheet under Sections 396 and
412 of the I.P.C. After submission of charge sheet, the
cognizance was taken and the case was committed to
the court of Sessions, where the charge was framed
under Sections 396 and 411 of the I.P.C., to which the
appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against
accused person, altogether eight witnesses were
examined by the prosecution.
7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following
documentary evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit-1 : Signature of witness
Surendra Prasad Verma on
seizure list.
Exhibit-1/1 : Signature of witness
Parmeshwar Mistry on
seizure list.
Exhibit-2 : Signature of witness Tripurai
Tiwari on seizure list.
Exhibit-2/1 : Signature of witness Nilam
Rajak on seizure list.
Exhibit-3 : Post-mortem report.
Exhibit-4 : Written report / Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-5 : Endorsement on Written
report.
Exhibit-6 : Seizure list.
Exhibit-6/1 : Seizure list.
Exhibit-6/2 : Seizure list.
Exhibit-6/3 : Seizure list.
8. The case of defence is that appellant is an innocent
person and has committed no offence at all. He has
been falsely implicated in this case.
However, no oral or documentary evidence has
been adduced by the defence.
9. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence
available on record, held the appellant guilty for the
offence under Section 411 of the I.P.C. and sentenced
as stated above.
10. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2006,
this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of
the appellant.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only
on the basis that the land over which the stolen iron
rods were found and seized by the police was taken on
rent by the present appellant from its lawful owner
and at the time of preparation of seizure list,
appellant was present and he has also signed over the
seizure list. It is further submitted that there is no
iota of evidence on record to prove that the land was
taken on rent by the appellant from its owner and the
Investigating Officer has also not interrogated with the
owner of the land. I.O. has not been examined as
witness in this case. Not a single chit of paper or oral
evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to
prove relation of landlord and tenant in respect of the
land over which the stolen property was found,
collected and stored. The appellant is a practicing
lawyer and is a reputed person and has no concern
with the alleged offence. The learned trial court has
held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section
411 of the I.P.C. without any legal and cogent
evidence to prove the ingredients of the said offence
against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the
appellant is liable to be set aside by allowing this
appeal.
12. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the
aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant
and submitted that the appellant has signed over the
seizure list in presence of witnesses and never
objected that the land was not belonging to him on
the basis of rent. Therefore, there is no illegality or
infirmity in the judgment, calling for any interference
in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.
13. I have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment and order in the light of
contentions raised on behalf of both the sides. It
appears that FIR was registered for the offence under
Section 302 against unknown persons.
14. It further transpired that in course of investigation,
stolen iron rods were seized by police in presence of
witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 & 4, who have not proved the
factum of seizure list of iron rod, rather proved their
signature only on the seizure list.
15. From over all appraisal of evidence of witnesses, it
appears that Truck No. BHG-8371 was intercepted by
some miscreants loaded with iron rod and Khalasi
was shot dead and the iron rod was stolen by the
accused persons. After investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against the present appellant for the
offence under Section 396 and 412 of the I.P.C. It
further transpires that appellant was acquitted from
the charges for offence under Section 396 of the I.P.C.
and instead of Section 412 I.P.C. he was held guilty
for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. only on the
basis of that in course of investigation, it was found
that the stolen iron rods were seized from the place,
which was rented to the appellant. From going
through the entire evidence available on record, I find
no iota of evidence which may prove that the land
over which the stolen articles were lying was ever let
out to the present appellant or he had any dominion
over the said property in any manner even the owner
of the land is not examined in this case to prove the
said fact. Therefore, it appears that appellant has
been convicted in this case only on the basis of
suspicion without any cogent and reliable evidence.
Hence, I am constrained to set aside the conviction
and sentence under Section 411 of the I.P.C.
16. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 12.07.2006 passed by learned
3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka
(F.T.C.) in Sessions Case No. 126 of 2002 is hereby
set aside.
17. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
18. The appellant is on bail, as such, he is discharged
from liability of bail bond and sureties shall also
discharged
19. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
[
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 19th November, 2024
Sunil /N.A.F.R.
