Jharkhand High Court
Kundan Singh @ Kundan Kumar Singh Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 October, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1072 of 2017
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 29.04.2017 and order of sentence
dated 05.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Dhanbad
in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 2012]
Kundan Singh @ Kundan Kumar Singh son of Late Atama Prakash Singh,
resident of Village Ara, Nawada Ben, P.O. and P.S. Udwant Nagar, District
Bhojpur (Bihar) .... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 16.10.2024 Pronounced On: 21.10.2024
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. The sole appellant is in appeal before this Court
against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 of
the IPC.
2. The informant-Tamanna Bano is the aunt of the deceased. She was told
by her mother at 9 a.m. that Saddam (her nephew) had not taken his breakfast.
Thereafter, the informant called Saddam on his phone number. He told her that
he was near Nawada Hotel and will return after some time. She tried calling
Saddam again at 1 p.m., but his phone was switched off. At 4 p.m., one Jahid
informed her that Saddam has been murdered at Birla Guest House. The
informant went to the Guest House and her sister also came there where she
came to know that two dead bodies were lying in the house of Kundan Singh.
The informant and her sister identified the body of Saddam (deceased) who had
sustained multiple injuries by sharp edged weapon. The other dead body was
identified to be of Bapi Sao whose neck was also slit by sharp weapon.
3. On the basis of fardbeyan, Nirsa P.S. Case No.266 of 2011 was registered
under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against the appellant. Police on
investigation, submitted charge sheet against this appellant, who was put on trial
and convicted for the offence.
4. Altogether 12 witnesses have been examined in this case and relevant
documents including post mortem examination report has been adduced into
evidence and marked as Exhibits 1-11.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there is
no direct eye witness to the incidence. Conviction rests on the presumption that
appellant was residing in the Birla Guest House where the incidence took place
and the dead bodies were found. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Guest
House was allotted to the appellant or he had been living there. It is a case of
circumstantial evidence and prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the
offence. Out of the 12 prosecution witnesses, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 5, P.W. 9, P.W.
10 and P.W. 11, have not supported the prosecution case and were declared
hostile. The FSL report (Exhibit 11) has not been formally proved and therefore,
cannot be accepted as legal evidence.
6. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It
is submitted that the appellant was caught and arrested from the place of
occurrence, who was closeted in the house where the double murder was
committed. Witnesses have consistently stated and proved this part of the
incidence and once the foundational fact of the appellant being found in the
house where the dead bodies were found, it was incumbent on his part offer
some explanation to the fact within his knowledge as to how the incidence took
place. In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., no explanation has been
offered.
7. Homicidal death of Saddam Hussain and Bapi Sao has been objectively
established by the Autopsy Surgeon (P.W. 4) and is not assailed in appeal.
8. Place of occurrence is also not in dispute which is situated in the Birla
Guest House. This part of prosecution case has been established in the testimony
of P.W. 3- informant, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 (I.O.). The place of occurrence has been
stated to be in the house of Kundan Singh in the Birla Guest House where both
the dead bodies were found under the cot.
9. It has also come in evidence that appellant was apprehended on spot and
I.O. (P.W. 7) has deposed that on his disclosure statement, other articles like
wearing apparel, sleeper, bottle of liquor, sharp edged Hasua, was seized and
seizure list was prepared (Exhibit 7).
10. P.W. 3 (informant) has deposed that when she arrived at the place of
occurrence, she could know from the people there that the house was of Kundan
Singh. Both the dead bodies which had incised wound with sharp-edged weapon
was also recovered under the cot smeared with blood. Other house hold article
had also contained blood stains. P.W. 6 has deposed that the police arrested the
appellant who was wearing towel at that time and had blood stained marks over
the towel, his hand and legs. These facts have been corroborated by the
Investigating Officers (P.W. 7 and P.W. 8).
11. All these clinching evidences were put to the appellant while recording
the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Appellant having been arrested
on spot with the dead bodies, the logical inference that follows is that it was
appellant and none else who had committed the crime. These evidences were
put to the appellant in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to offer some
explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act as to how the crime took
place as he was the only person who could have disclosed facts which were
within his special knowledge. In the absence of any explanation coming
forward, or any suggestion that someone else had committed the offence, the
inescapable conclusion is that it was the appellant, who had committed the
crime. Learned trial Court has dealt with all these aspects at length.
Under the aforesaid facts circumstance, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Court below which is accordingly, affirmed.
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along
with a copy of this judgment.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Ananda Sen, J. I agree.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 21st October, 2024
AFR/Anit
