Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Singh @ Albela Singh @ Albela Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1341 of 2016
With
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 708 of 2017
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2016 and order of sentence
dated 28.09.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C.-II,
Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 313 of 2015]
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1341 of 2016
1. Ravi Singh @ Albela Singh @ Albela son of Sri Awdhesh Singh, resident of
Kurmidih, Girija Toli, P.O. and P.S. Balidih, District Bokaro
2. Kanhaiya Pachari son of Sri Jamadar Pachari resident of Kurmidih near
Mission School, P.O. and P.S. Balidih, District Bokaro
.... .... .... Appellants
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 708 of 2017
Sukhlal Pandya @ Poria son of Late Tappu Pandya (Poria), resident of
Kurmidih, P.O. and P.S. Balidih, Bokaro (Jharkhand)
.... .... .... Appellants
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant: Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Special P.P.
[In Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1341 of 2016]
Ms. Priya Shrestha, Special P.P.
[In Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 708 of 2017]
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Dated 16th October, 2024
By Court Since both these appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and
sentence therefore, they have been heard together and will be disposed by the
common judgment.
2. Appellants are before this Court against the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed under Sections 302 366, 201/34 and 376D of the IPC.
Informant is a rustic illiterate lady in whose house the victim woman was living
for last two months. On 24.06.2015, all these three appellants came to her house
at night at 10 O'clock and abducted her in order to commit rape with her. The
woman from the village opposed the abduction, but they did not relent. After
the said abduction, the victim became traceless and consequently, on
27.06.2015, Balidih P.S. Case No.155/15 was registered under Section 366/34
of the IPC. During course of investigation, her dead body was found and
Sections 376 (2)(g), 302 and 201 of the IPC was added in the FIR against these
appellants.
3. Police on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge against
altogether seven accused persons including these appellants.
4. All the accused persons were put on trial for the charges of committing
abduction, gang rape, murder and causing disappearance of evidence.
5. Learned trial Court convicted these appellants while acquitting other four.
6. Altogether 14 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution
and relevant documents including the disclosure statement of appellant- Ravi
Singh @ Albela Singh and Sukhlal Pandya @ Poria has been adduced into
evidence and marked as exhibit. Homicidal death of the victim aged about 26
years, is objectively established by the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit
4). Doctor opined that cause of death could not be ascertained as the body was
in highly decomposed condition. Doctor assessed the time since death to be
about 3-4 days. There were marks of external injury.
7. The dead body was found in a drain floating on water between the two
railway line on 28.06.2015 as deposed by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 13).
Deceased had a five year old daughter who was sent to a child care centre.
8. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that
informant has not supported the prosecution case and there is no direct eye
witness to the incidence. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence,
chain of which is not proved beyond the shadow of all reasonable and probable
doubt.
9. P.W. 1- Savitri Devi has deposed that the incidence took place on 24th
June, 2015 at 10 O' clock at night. At that time, she was sleeping in her house
and got up on hearing the scream of a woman. She saw that three persons were
dragging the victim by her hand, they were Sukhlal, Ravi and Kanhaiya. She
tried to save her, but they did not pay any heed to her protest and threatened her.
Other villagers- Chhoti Devi and Manju Barla, also tried to rescue her without
success. She could identify the appellant in the bulb light. In her cross-
examination, she has deposed that the place from where the victim was abducted
about 10-15 feet from her house.
P.W. 2- Manju Barla has corroborated the testimony of P.W. 1 regarding
the manner in which the victim was dragged from the house. In her cross-
examination at para 12, she has deposed that she had tried to save victim from
being abducted.
Testimony of P.W.3- Chhoti Devi is also to the same effect. In para 13
of her cross-examination, she deposed that she has no enmity with these
appellants.
P.W. 4- Bhanumati Devi has corroborated the testimony of other witness
and deposed that all these three appellants were dragging the victim at night.
On seeing this, she got terrified and closed her door and slept in her own house.
P.W. 5- Santosh Kumar has also given consistent account that these
appellants had abducted the victim woman that night.
All these are independent co-villagers and have consistently stated about
the abduction of the victim woman by these appellants at night. What is
significant to note is that almost all of these woman witnesses tried to resist the
abduction of the victim and we are of the view that the testimony of these
witnesses can be relied and acted upon.
10. After the said abduction, the dead body was recovered in a decomposed
state. Apart from the oral evidence of last seen, the wearing apparel of the victim
was recovered concealed under stone on the basis of the disclosure statement of
Ravi Singh (Exhibit 5/1). Further, the string used in strangulating the victim and
T-shirt were recovered on confessional statement of Sukhlal Pandya (Exhibit
6/1). The seizure list has been proved as Exhibit 7 and that of the wearing
apparels, seizure list as Exhibit 8. Appellant- Ravi Singh had teeth bite over his
hand which has been proved as Exhibit 15 by Doctor (P.W. 14). All these
evidences were put to the appellants while recording the statement under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., but no explanation has been offered on their behalf.
11. What emerges from the prosecution evidence is that the victim was a poor
woman with an infant child aged five years, was eking her livelihood by
working as a maid servant and living in the house of the informant taking
advantage of her hapless condition, appellants abducted the victim from her
house which has been testified by the witnesses. After the abduction, her dead
body was found near the railway track in a naked condition. It is only the
appellants who could have thrown light on what they did with their prey after
her abduction at that night. Appellants have drawn a blank on this score which
they were obligated to disclose under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. It has
not been stated as to when did they part company with the victim woman. Law
mandates that the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn from these
proved facts is that, it was the appellants who were the author of the crime of
abduction (see Sucha Singh Versus State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 375 murder
and throwing the dead body in order to conceal the crime.
Judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201/34
of the IPC is affirmed.
12. Charge under Section 376 (D) of the IPC is not proved for want of any
oral or medical evidence of rape. Consequently, Section 366/34 of the IPC shall
also not apply. Judgment of conviction and sentence under these Sections, are
set aside.
Both these Criminal Appeal are dismissed with modification in
finding and sentence.
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.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 16th October, 2024
AFR/Anit
