Jharkhand High Court
Chandan Hansda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 October, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 806 of 2014
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 27.09.2014 and Order of
sentence dated 29.09.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-Ist, Seraikella in Sessions Trail No. 47/2006]
Chandan Hansda, Son of Late Babulal Hansda, resident of village--
Bareda Tola Bhusandin, PO & PS--Nimdih, District--Seraikella
Kharswan. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .....Respondent
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
---------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. On 24.09.2024 Pronounced On: 03 /10/2024
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
Heard learned counsel for appellant as well as learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. Above named sole appellant has preferred this appeal challenging
his conviction and sentence dated 27.09.2014/29.09.2014 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Seraikella in Sessions Trail No.
47/2006 for the offences under Section 302 and 201/34 of I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of
Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 302 and further R.I. of 4 years
along with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 201/34 of
the I.P.C with default stipulation.
Page | 1
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 14.01.2006,
informant Anil Hembram along with father Upal Hembram had gone
to see cock fight at village Podogora. In the evening, at about 06:00
PM, informant left the place saying his father that he is returning by
his bicycle and he has to come on foot. It is further alleged that the
informant's father did not return in the night then, in the next day
morning, he started searching his father and enquired with several
villagers and relatives, but no clue was found. It is further alleged that
on 18.01.2006, in the morning informant's brother Chetan Hebram
went to village Bhusandi where one Dursu Hebram told that his father
might have been killed by Shikhar Hansda and Chetan Hansda and his
dead body may be found in the pond at village Bhusandih. The
informant along with other villagers met with Brindaban Manjhi,
Dursu Hembram, Logan Hembram and Pakhan Tudu etc. who
disclosed that his father was returning with Sikhar Hansda in the night
of Sunday from village Podogora. Thereafter, they have not seen him.
Chandan Hansda (present appellant) was also seen with them. They
also disclosed that in the night at about 10:00 PM, they have also
heard and seen Sikhar Hansda was doing something in the village
pond calling bhoot, but the villagers ignored them due to night and
also in view of fact that both were extremely under drunken state. It
is further alleged that due to suspicion, the informant and villagers
started searching his father in the pond and found a dead body tied
with a log which was brought out and village chowkidar was also
Page | 2
informed. Police arrived in the morning of 19.01.2006 and fardbeyan
of the informant was recorded by S.I. Dhannajay Singh, Officer-In-
Charge, Nimdih Police Station at about 09:00 AM. Accordingly, an
F.I.R. was registered at Nimdih P.S. Case No. 6/2006 dated
19.01.2006 for the offences under Section 302/201 read with Section
34 I.P.C. Charge of investigation was also assumed by S.I. Dhananjay
Singh (P.W.13) who after completion of investigation submitted
charge-sheet against the appellant and his brother Shikhar Hansda for
the offences under Section 302/201 of I.P.C.
4. Accordingly, the case was commuted to the Court of Sessions
and the charges were read-over and explained to the accused persons,
who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. In the course of trial, the other co-accused person namely Sikhar
Hansda died, hence proceeding against him was dropped and the
present appellant has faced the trial.
6. In the course of trial, prosecution has examined altogether 13
witnesses and also adduced following documentary evidences.
(i) Exhibit 1: - Signature of informant on Fardbeyan.
(ii) Exhibit 1/1 and 1/2: - Signature of witnesses, Motilal
Hembram and Mohan Hembram respectively, over inquest report
of the deceased.
(iii) Exhibit 2 and 2/1:- Fardbeyan and endorsement on Fardbeyan
for registration of case, respectively.
(iv) Exhibit 3: - Formal F.I.R.
(v) Exhibit 4: - Inquest Report and,
Page | 3
(vi) Exhibit 5: - Post-mortem report of the deceased.
7. On the other hand, in the statement recorded under Section 313
of the Cr.P.C, the accused has pleaded innocence and false implication
in the case only on the basis of suspicion. However, no oral or
documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.
8. Learned Trail Court, after apprising with the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record arrived at conclusion that
although, there is no direct evidence against the accused, but there are
sufficient circumstantial evidences showing that the accused and his
brother Sikhar Hansda were last seen with the deceased in the same
night while they were returning from mela. Thereafter, in the night
accused Shikhar Hansda was raising alarm of "Bhoot-Bhoot" and
searching something in the pond. Accused Chandan Hembram was
also present there hence, the villagers were suspecting reasonably that
the accused persons have killed the father of the informant. The dead
body of the deceased was also found in the same pond which clearly
indicates the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged
offence of murder. Accordingly, held the appellant guilty and
sentenced him for the offences under Section 302 and 201/34 of the
I.P.C. as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the
impugned judgment and order has vehemently argued that the learned
Trial Court has committed serious illegality while appreciating the
evidence of witnesses wherein no role has been attributed against the
appellant rather it has been stated by some witnesses that in the night
Page | 4
of incident at about 10:00 PM, the brother of the present appellant
namely Shikhar Hansda was searching something in the pond situated
in his village saying that he is searching "Bhoot", but the witnesses
believing that under heavy drunken state, Shikhar Hansda was doing
such abnormal behavior and went away. The allegation against the
appellant is that he was also present with his brother Shikhar Hansda.
It is further submitted that neither the appellant has been last seen with
the deceased at any point of time nor any scuffle ever took place
between the deceased and the appellant and there were no inimical
terms between them prior to the alleged occurrence. There is no
evidence that the dead body of the deceased was brought out from the
said pond on identification of the present appellant.
10. The learned Trial Court simply on the ground that present
appellant is real brother of the co-accused Shikhar Hansda (since
deceased) has fastened the criminal liability for such a serious offence
of murder with the appellant without any cogent evidence. As such
conviction and sentence of the present appellant is absolutely not
warranted under law and fit to be set aside.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted
that learned trial court has very wisely and aptly apprised, scanned
and appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidences available
on record against the appellant and arrived at right conclusion that the
appellant was also seen with the deceased on the fateful night and
subsequently, he along with his brother Shikhar Hansda in pretext of
Page | 5
searching ghost were disposing of the dead body of the deceased
which was brought out on suspicion of villagers and the matter was
informed to the police. There is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment and order calling for any interference by way of
this appeal which has no merits and is fit to be dismissed.
12. In view of the rival contentions of the learned counsels, the moot
question arises as to whether the conviction and sentence of the
appellant is justified under law or not?
13. For better appreciation of the merits of the impugned judgment,
it is desirable to apprise with oral testimony of witnesses examined
by the prosecution.
P.W.13 Dhananjay Singh, who is S.I., Officer-In-Charge is the
Investigation Officer of the case and prepared the inquest report
(Exhibit 4) in presence of the witnesses namely Motilal Hembran and
Mohan Hembram He has also sent the dead body of the deceased for
Post-mortem at MGM Hospital, Jamshedpur. He visited the place of
occurrence which is pond situated in village Bhusandih which is 10
feet deep, but there was only 3 feet water. There were about 25 logs
measuring 7-8 feet in the said pond. It is stated by the witness that
with the help of these log, the dead body of the deceased was drowned
in the pond which was brought out by the villagers. In the course of
investigation, he recorded the statement of the witnesses, obtained
post-mortem report of the deceased, arrested the accused persons and
after finding sufficient evidences, submitted charge-sheet for the
offence committed under Section 302, 201/34 of I.P.C.
Page | 6
P.W.4:--Anil Hembram, is the informant of this who has
corroborated the contents of his Fardbeyan and stated that on
15.01.2006, he along with his father went to see cock fighting at
village Podogora from where when he was returning in the evening,
but his father assured to return later on, did not reach the house till
night. On the next day, he searched his father along with other family
members, but no clue was found. On 18.01.2006, he enquired with
Shyam Prasad son of Shikhar Hansda who expressed his no
knowledge about his father. He has further deposed that his elder
brother Chetan Hembram was also searching his father and met with
one Dursu Hansda (P.W.2) who disclosed that on 15.01.2006 in the
night, he has seen his father with Shikhar Hansda and went in his
house. He also told that in the night at about 10:00 PM, Shikhar
Hansda was calling "Bhoot-Bhoot" where Chandan Hansda (present
appellant) was also present. He also expressed his suspicion that
Shikhar Hansda and Chandan Hansda might have killed Upal Hansda
(deceased) and disposed of the dead body in the pond. This witness
has further deposed that thereafter, this witness along with village
Chowkidar and other villagers went to the pond of Shikhar Hansda
where the dead body of his father was found tied with rope to a big
log. In the next day morning, police arrived at the pond where his
statement was recorded.
In his cross-examination, this witness has clearly admitted that
prior to occurrence there was some dispute between the deceased and
co-accused persons and there were no talking terms between them.
Page | 7
P.W.2 Dursu Hembram who have disclosed the last seen theory
to the informant (P.W.4) has simply stated that on 15.06.2006 in the
evening, he saw deceased (Upal Hansda) with co-accused person
Shikhar Hansda and some other villagers were returning from village
Fair (Mela). In the night he heard Hulla of "Bhoot-Bhoot" raised by
Shikhar Hansda near his pond (pit), Chandan Hansda (appellant) was
also present there, but he ignored due to extreme state of drunkenness
of Shikhar Hansda and he also saw. He has further deposed that in the
next day morning, when son of Upal Hembram (deceased) met him
and disclosed that his father is missing since 15.06.2006, then on
suspicion he searched in the pond of the accused and a dead body was
found and the matter was informed to police.
P.W. 3 Logan Hembram has also stated about the last seen
theory that the deceased (Upal Hembram) was seen with Shikhar
Hansda and P.W.5 Pakhan Tudu is not a witness of last seen theory,
he heard the hulla and saw Shikhar Hansda was calling "Bhoot-
Bhoot" in his pond (Pit). He suggested him (Shikhar Hansda) to come
out and go to his home, thereafter, he returned his home.
P.W. 6 Shivnandan Manjhi has been declared hostile by the
prosecution.
P.W. 7 Motilal Hembram is also a hearsay witness who came to
know about last seen theory from Dursu Hembram (P.W.2) and came
to know that Shikhar Hansda was searching "Bhoot" in his pond (pit)
when dead body was recovered from the pond, Chandan Hansda and
Shikhar Hansda fled away.
Page | 8
P.W. 8 Dasrath Hembram, P.W.9 Ajit Hembram and P.W.10
Mohan Hembram, all are the hearsay witnesses and stated in their
statement that they all came to know about the incident from Dursu
Hembram (P.W.2) that Shikhar Hembram was searching "Bhoot" in
his pond (pit).
P.W.11 Sundari Hembram is daughter-in-law of the deceased
and she is also a hearsay witness and came to know about the incident
from his husband (Chetan Hembram).
P.W.12 Chaitan Hembram, is also son of the deceased and came
to know about the incident from Dursu Hembram (P.W.2) that his
father has been killed by Shikhar Hansda and Chandan Hansda and
the dead body has been disposed off in the pond (pit). The accused
persons did not disclose anything to him.
14. From bare perusal of aforesaid testimony of ocular witnesses,
it is crystal clear that the main witness Anil Hembram (P.W.4) and
Dursu Hembram (P.W.2) have stated that the deceased was returning
from the village fair (Mela) along with Shikhar Hansda (Co-accused,
since deceased) and in the same night at about 10:00 PM, after hearing
noise, they came out and saw that Shikhar Hansda was searching
something in his pond saying "Bhoot-Bhoot". The role of the present
appellant is that he was also present with his brother (Shikhar
Hansda). The appellant has not been claimed to have seen together
with the deceased at the time of returning from village fair (Mela). It
is also an admitted fact that there was no talking terms between the
deceased and the accused persons. It is quite obvious that no
Page | 9
incriminating circumstance including the last seen theory has been
propounded against the present appellant by the prosecution.
15. We have given anxious consideration to the overall facts and
circumstances available on record by the prosecution and of
considered view that the last seen theory as propounded by the
prosecution in this case is only against the co-accused Shikhar Hansda
who died during the pendency of the trial. Mere presence of the
appellant along with main accused Shikhar Hansda is of no
consequence in this case. The prosecution has miserably failed to
point out any incriminating circumstance against the appellant from
which his guilt may be presumed conclusively. It appears that the
learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the
circumstantial evidence available against the appellant and arrived at
wrong conclusion.
16. From the evidences on record as discussed above, it is obvious
that present appellant was never seen with the deceased on the fateful
date of incident nor he was found in suspicious circumstances
showing his guilty mind. The appellant has been convicted only on
the basis of suspicion. It is established law that suspicion howsoever
grave it may be, cannot take place of legal proof.
17. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, we arrived at
definite conclusion that the conviction and sentence of the appellant
is not justified under law. Accordingly, we find merits in this appeal
which is hereby, allowed and conviction and sentence of appellant
passed by Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Seraikella in Sessions Trial
Page | 10
No. 47 of 2006 is hereby set aside and appellant is acquitted from the
charges levelled against him.
18. Appellant is in custody and directed to be released forthwith, if
not required in any other case.
19. Let the copy of this judgment along with record of trial court be
sent back to concerned Court for information and needful.
20. Pending Interlocutory Application (if any) is disposed of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 03 /10/2024
Amar/- A.F.R.
Page | 11
