Jharkhand High Court
Ramrai Surin vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 October, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.917 of 2018
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence
dated 29.07.2017/31.07.2017, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum Chaibasa in S.T. Case
No.269 of 2013]
------
1. Ramrai Surin, Aged about -40 years, S/o Sitaram Surin,
2. Pani Surin, Aged about-30 years, W/o Ramrai Surin
3. Both Residents of village-Devabir, P.O. & P.S.-Sonua,
District-Singhbhum, West Singhbhum
.... .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Alpana Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
------
CAV On 18/09/2024 Pronounce On 03/ 10/2024
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence of the appellants dated
29.07.2017/31.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II, West Singhbhum Chaibasa in S.T. Case No.269 of 2013
arising out of Sonua P.S. Case No.42 of 2012, corresponding to
G.R. Case No.354 of 2012 (hereinafter the called the impugned
judgment and order), whereby and whereunder the appellants
have been held guilty for the offences under sections 302, 201
and 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo
imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty
Thousand) under sections 302/34 of India Penal Code and
further rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with fine of
Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) for the offence under sections 201/34
of Indian Penal Code with default stipulation.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 02.11.2012,
the informant Ram Lal Tanti, who happens to be Chawkidar
No.05/2017 was deputed at Bank of India, Govindpur received
information from some account holders of the bank that a dead
body of an unknown person is lying into the ring well of
Dipasai. The informant proceeded to the said place and saw an
unknown dead body lying into the well. The informant
communicated to the nearest police station then, the police
arrived at the place of occurrence and the dead body of the
deceased was brought out from the well. There were marks of
assault on head, chest and both legs, which were fractured. It
appeared that some unknown persons after committing
murder have disposed of the dead body into the well about 4-5
days ago. The inquest report was prepared but no local
persons could identify the deceased.
3. The Officer-in-Charge of Sonua Police Station, after recording
the statement of the informant sent the same for registration of
FIR for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of Indian
Penal Code. The charge of investigation was given to Sub-
Inspector Mahendra Baraik(PW-8) and the confessional
statement of the present appellants were recorded by the then
Officer-in-Charge of Sonua Police Station namely Suraj Oraon
and the seizure list of seized materials were also prepared by
him (Ext.3/1,3/2 and 3/3), which were received by
Investigating Officer. In the course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer has examined several witnesses of facts
and obtained post-mortem report of the deceased, which was
identified by his brother by seeing photographs and he also
sent the material exhibits to FSL, Ranchi for chemical
examination and obtained the chemical examination report
(Ext.6 and 6/1). It was also surfaced during the investigation
that the name of the deceased was Motu Tiu, who was under
love affairs with the appellant No.2 Pani Surin prior to her
marriage with the appellant No.1, but in spite of her marriage,
he continued his affairs with the appellant No.2 and always
used to tease her. Due to this reason, both the appellants have
killed the deceased by giving spade blows and disposed of his
dead body in nearby well. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was
submitted against the appellants and one Budhuram
Hembrom @ Kendu Hembrom, who had also assisted in
disposing the dead body of the deceased.
4. In course of the trial, all together 11 witnesses were examined
by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against
the accused persons.
Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, the following
documents have also been marked as exhibits by the
prosecution.
Ext.1:- Signature of Ramlal Tanti on Fardbeyan
Ext.1/1:-Fardbeyan.
Ext.1/2:-Registration of Fardbeyan
Ext.2:-Postmortem report
Ext.3:-Signature of Ganesh Bandia on Seizure list.
Ext.3/1:-Seizure list of Kudal with wooden handle
Ext.3/2:-Seizure-list regarding the seizure of blood
stained soil from the south corner of the room of the
house of accused Ramrai Surin.
Ext.3/3:-Seizure-list of Mobile
Ext.3/4:-Seizure-list of Motorcycle
Ext.3/5:-Signature of Devashish Tiu on seizure-list
Ext.3/6:-Signature of Sanatan Khandait on seizure-list
Ext.4:-Formal F.I.R.
Ext.5:-Confessional statement of Ramrai Surin @
Sachin @ Chin
Ext.5/1:-Confessional statement of Pani Surin.
Ext.5/2:-Confessional statement of Budhram @ Kendo
Hembrom
Ext.6:-S.F.S.L. Report No.562/13, dated 31.01.2014
Ext.6/1:-S.F.S.L. Report No. 562/13 dated 19.02.2014
Ext.7:-Inquest report.
Mark "X" for identification:- Photo copy of inquest
report.
5. The accused persons in their respective statement recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C have denied the commission of
offence and pleaded their innocence, however, no oral or
documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.
6. The learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available
on record held the present appellants guilty and sentenced
them as stated above and one co-accused, Budhuram
Hembrom @ Kendu Hembrom was extended the benefit of
doubt and acquitted from the charge leveled against him.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned
judgment and order has vehemently argued that the entire
prosecution story hinges on some scanty circumstances
deliberately concocted by some inimical witnesses with a view
to falsely implicate the appellants. Admittedly, there is no eye-
witnesses of the occurrence and the entire recovery of the
weapon of offence or blood stained mud or the mobile phone
are not connected at all with this case to conclusively prove the
guilt of the appellants. The alleged seized spade was found full
of brownish rust and the blood-stained mud was also not
collected in the presence of the appellants. The most suspicious
thing is that although both the material exhibits are shown to
be containing human blood "B" group but there is no evidence
at all that the blood group of the deceased was also "B".
It is further argued that from the facts proved by the
prosecution witnesses itself, it is crystal clear that all the
recoveries were made by the witnesses themselves without
any disclosure statement of the accused persons and after
recovery of the aforesaid articles, forcible confessional
statement of the appellants were recorded by the then Officer-
in-Charge, Sonua Police Station namely Suraj Oraon. The said
Officer-in-Charge has not been examined as a witness in this
case. Hence, defense has been seriously prejudiced to illicit the
material under what circumstances their confessional
statements were recorded by him and how the recovery was
relevant under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The
Investigating Officer of this case namely Mahendra
Baraik(PW-8) has also failed to prove that the seized mobile
phone of this case belonged to the deceased and on whose
identification of the place, the said mobile phone was
recovered. The learned trial court has absolutely failed to
apply its judicial mind towards the glaring incriminating facts
and circumstances against the appellants, which have not been
proved in accordance with law and could not be made basis of
their conviction. The whole approach of the trial court is
beyond the weight of the evidence and cardinal principle of
law of evidence has been ignored. The appellants are innocent,
have committed no offence at all and deserve to be acquitted
extending benefit of reasonable doubt by setting aside their
conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State controverting the aforesaid point of arguments raised
on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the learned trial
court has very wisely and aptly considered over all evidences
available on record and arrived at right conclusion that the
prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants
beyond all reasonable doubts. From the evidence led by the
prosecution, it is obvious that the kudal (spade) used in
committing the murder of the deceased by the present
appellants was recovered from the pond situated in front of
their own house. The proof of blood stains both on spade as
well as mud stained blood has been found of human origin of
same blood group "B" also fortifies the commission of offence
by the appellants and none else. Therefore, there is no illegality
or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence of the appellants calling for any interference, there is
no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.
9. It appears that the learned trial court after scrutinizing the oral
as well as the documentary evidence available on record,
confessional statement of the appellants, alleged recovery of
incriminating articles and the report of the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Ranchi showing presence of blood stains over the
seized kudal(spade) and blood-stained soil, which contains
blood group "B" of human origin and the mobile phone
allegedly belonging to deceased, arrived at irresistible
conclusion that it is none else but the appellants, who are
author of the murder of the deceased. The learned trial court
also relied upon the confessional statement of present
appellants marked as Ext.5 and 5/1 respectively leading to
discovery of weapon used in the commission of offence. The
blood stained soil, motorcycle of the deceased and his mobile
phone were also considered relevant under section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, there is no hesitation to
conclude that the prosecution has successfully bring home the
charges leveled against the accused namely Ramrai Surin and
Pani Surin beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly,
convicted and sentenced them.
10. The question before us for consideration is that as to whether
the reliance placed upon the aforesaid circumstantial evidence
by the prosecution and acted upon by the trial court is legally
sustainable or not?
11. Prosecution has examined altogether 11 witnesses in this case:
PW-1, Sri Pitamber Surin and P.W.2, Sri Meghnath
Khandai have expressed no knowledge about the occurrence
of this case and also denied any statement before the
Investigating Officer, as such declared hostile by the
prosecution.
P.W.3, Sri Ramlal Tati is the informant of this case,
who has simply stated that on 02.11.2012, while he was in duty
at Govindpur, branch of Bank of India, one account holder
informed about a dead body lying in a well near Dipasai ring.
Then, he informed the police and the dead body of unknown
person was recovered from the well and except the above facts,
he knows nothing.
P.W.4, Dr. Mahavir Prasad Gopalika, has conducted
the autopsy on dead body of the unknown deceased on
03.11.2012, and found following:
(i) Rigor mortis absent, body decomposed, foul
smelling and maggots present.
(ii) Face swollen eyes closed,
(iii) Lacerated wound near left eye and left and right
temporal area of head. Fracture of skull bone,
fracture of both knee joints.
Internal Examination:-
(i) Heart right blood, left empty
(ii) Lungs liver spleen and kidney pale
(iii) Stomach empty, bladder empty.
Cause of death:-
(i) Haemorrhage and shock due to head injury and
knee joint injury.
Time since death:- Within 4-5 days.
The post-mortem report is marked as Ext.2.
P.W.5 Sri Bihari Surin is a hearsay witness and
disclosed that he heard from some villagers that someone has
been murdered by the accused Ramrai Surin and a motorcycle
was also found in the pond but he has no personal knowledge
about the occurrence.
P.W.6 Sri Gunaram Surin has also heard about the
murder of an unknown person in his village but does not
know about the incident and has been declared hostile by the
prosecution. He has also denied any statement before the
police recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC.
P.W.7 Sri Ganesh Bandia is a resident of another
village Gondasai. According to his evidence, he came to know
from Devashish Tiu (PW-9) that his uncle Motu Tiu has been
murdered in the house of accused Ramrai Surin and the
motorcycle of the deceased was found in the pond. He does
not know from where the dead body of the deceased was
recovered. This witness along with Devashish Tiu(PW-9) went
to village Devabir on 17.12.2013 and further states that on
identification of the accused Pani Surin, they went to the house
of the accused Ramrai Surin and from the courtyard of the
accused persons, a mobile phone of LG company was
recovered from a pit and seizure list was prepared in presence
of this witness and Devashish Tiu. Except the above facts, he
knows nothing about the occurrence.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that
Devashish Tiu is the son of his Phuffu.
P.W.9 Sri Devashish Tiu has also stated about the
recovery of mobile phone from the courtyard of accused
persons at the instance of the accused Pani Surin and he has
also signed on the seizure list prepared by the police. Except
recovery of the mobile phone, he has stated nothing about the
incident rather he admits that the deceased was his uncle, who
was murdered.
In his cross examination, this witness admits that he
was never interrogated by the police in connection with this
case and his village is situated at a distance of 40-50 kms away
from the place of occurrence. There is no other material in his
evidence.
P.W.10 Santan Khandait is a local villager, who has
proved his signature on seizure list of iron spade but he has
specifically declined any recovery before him. This witness has
also been declared hostile by the prosecution and in his cross-
examination, also reiterates that the above iron spade was not
recovered in his presence at the instance of accused persons.
His signature was taken on the seizure list at police station.
P.W.11 Sri Man Singh Kora has also denied any
recovery of iron spade from the pond situated in front of the
house of the accused Ramrai Surin and he has been declared
hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.8 Mahendra Baraik (Sub-Inspector) the
Investigating Officer of this case has proved the fardbayan of
Ramlal Tanti in the handwriting of then Officer-in-Charge
Suraj Oraon as Ext.1/1, endorsement for registration of the
case as Ext.1/2 and Formal FIR signed by the then Officer-in-
Charge as Ext.4. He has further deposed that the confessional
statement of the accused Ramrai Surin @ Sachin @ Chin and
Pani Surin were recorded by then Officer-in-Charge Suraj
Oraon, which are marked as Ext.5, 5/1 respectively. This
witness has recorded the confessional statement of accused
Budhram Hembrom @ Kendu Hembrom, which is marked as
Ext.5/2 with objection.
He has also stated that in connection of this case, three
seizure lists have been prepared, out of which two seizure lists
have been written and signed by him and one by the then
Officer-in-Charge namely Suraj Oraon. He has signed over
three seizure lists marked as Ext. 3/1, 3/2 and 3/3 and fourth
seizure list was prepared by the then Officer-in-Charge Suraj
Oraon marked as Ext.3/4. He has prepared inquest report of
the unknown deceased and carbon copy of which has been
marked as "X" for identification. He has further deposed that
on 02.11.2012, he received the charge of investigation from the
then Officer-in-Charge Suraj Oraon in connection with Sonua
P.S. Case No.42 of 2012 registered for offence under sections
and 302, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code dated 02.11.2012.
After receiving the charge of investigation, he recorded
fardbayan of the informant and inquest report in the case diary.
He recorded restatement of the informant namely Ramlal Tanti
and witnesses Motai Bodra, Pitamber Surin and Bihari Surin.
He found clue from the witness Pitambar Surin(PW-1)
and the restatement of Meghnath Khandait (PW-2) that after
some days of the recovery of the unknown dead body, he went
to take bath in the pond of Madhusudan Surin, wherein a
motorcycle was found and seized by the police, which belongs
to one Motu Tiu @ Gonu. Thereafter, he came to know that
Motu Tiu was murdered and his dead body was thrown by the
accused persons Ramrai Surin and his wife Pani Surin due to
illicit relationship between the deceased and Pani Surin. He
also came to know that the murder of the Motu Tiu was
committed in the house of Ramrai Surin and his wife Pani
Surin by causing injury through spade and the dead body was
disposed of with assistance of Budhuram Hembrom @ Kendu
Hembrom in the ring well of Dipasai. It was also disclosed that
the accused persons scratched the wall of their house stained
with blood of the deceased and also buried his mobile phone
in front of their house.
The above materials were recovered by the police and
both the accused persons were arrested. This witness has also
inspected both the place of occurrence, first is the house of
accused persons, the mud wall was found scratched in the
corner. There was a room towards south wherein the deceased
was murdered and the side wall of the room was scratched
and mud floor was also scratched by spade. Towards the north
side of the wall, there was a private pond of the accused
persons. He also visited second place of occurrence where the
dead body of Motu Tiu was found at Dipasai ring well. The
well was belonging to the deceased and nearby his landed
property was also situated, which is a very lonely place.
Thereafter, this witness conducted a raid at the house of
accused Ramrai Surin for his arrest but he was not found and
sketch map of the place of occurrence was prepared.
12. In course of investigation, he prepared the seizure list of Bajaj
Discover Motorcycle bearing Reg. No. JH-06B-8052 belonging
to the deceased in the presence of witnesses Mamta Surin and
Prempratap Boipai at the place of the occurrence. At the first
place of occurrence, the minor sons of the accused Ramrai
Surin namely Ashok Surin and Sukhram Surin aged about 8
and 6 years respectively disclosed that the blood stained marks
on the wall was scratched by their mother Pani Surin. On that
basis, blood stained soil was recovered and seizure list was
prepared. Thereafter, on 17.12.2012 during the course of raid at
village Devabir, the accused Ramrai Surin was arrested and his
arrest memo was prepared in the presence of witnesses. The
confessional statement of accused namely Ramrai Surin and
Pani Surin were recorded, who confessed their guilt that they
have caused death of the deceased by causing injury by spade
which has been thrown in the pond situated in front of their
house. Thereafter the spade was recovered from the pond
fitted with wood handle from the said pond and the seizure
list was prepared. Both the accused persons have also
disclosed that the mobile phone of the deceased has also been
buried in the courtyard, which was also recovered and seized
in the presence of witnesses Ganesh Bandia and Devashish
Tiu, however, the mobile phone was not containing any SIM
Card. The blood stained soil and the spade were sent to
Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi for chemical examination.
After completion of investigation, he has submitted charge-
sheet against the accused persons for the offences under
sections 302, 201 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
13. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is crystal
clear that none of the seizure list witnesses of alleged spade
and mobile phone of the deceased have been able to prove that
the said recovery was made in their presence. The
Investigating Officer of this case (P.W.8) has also failed to state
as to how the spade used in this case, was recovered from the
pond. In the F.S.L. report (Ext.6 & 6/1), the said spade is
shown as partly broken but the same has not been mentioned
in the seizure list. It further appears that the blood stained
mud was also collected prior to the recording of confessional
statement of the appellants. The mobile phone alleged to
belong to the deceased was not containing any SIM Card and
there is no investigation as to whether it was of the deceased or
any other else. We further find that the confessional statement
of the appellants have been recorded by the police after their
arrest but the same has not been proved and marked as
exhibits so as to apply Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. The
totality of the circumstances clearly shows that nothing has
been recovered in this case in pursuance of confessional
statement of the appellants rather everything was recorded
prior to arrest of the appellants by the police with assistance of
some witnesses, who have been turned hostile during trial.
14. We further find that learned trial court has failed to apply its
judicial mind towards the relevancy of incriminating materials
allegedly seized in this case like bloodstained spade,
bloodstained mud, mobile phone and motorcycle of the
deceased. There is no evidence at all that the blood group of
the deceased was "B". The prosecution has also failed to prove
any ill-will or motive of the appellants to commit murder of
the deceased. The case is based on circumstantial evidence but
the circumstances evidence relied upon by the prosecution
have no tendency to conclusively point towards the guilt of the
appellants.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, we find merit
in this appeal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order
of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum,
Chaibasa, is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed.
16. Appellant No.1 Ramrai Surin is in custody, he is directed to be
released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
17. Appellant No.2 Pani Surin is on bail and discharged from
liability of bail bond.
18. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
19. Let the copy of this judgment along with record of trial court
be sent back for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 3/10/2024
Pappu/- A.F.R.
