Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Kumar Sahu @ Santosh Kumar Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1837 of 2017
------
(Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 23.08.2017
and order of sentence dated 01.09.2017 passed by Learned
Sessions Judge, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No.74 of 2014)
------
Santosh Kumar Sahu @ Santosh Kumar Sao, son of Raj Kumar
Sahu, resident of Village Tharthari, P.O. & P.S. Tharthari, District
Nalanda (Bihar). At present resident of Village Datia Road,
Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District Khunti.
... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... Respondent
------
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
------
JUDGMENT
By Court, :
16th October, 2024
This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated
23.08.2017 and order of sentence dated 01.09.2017 passed by
Learned Sessions Judge, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No.74 of 2014,
whereby and wherein the appellant has been convicted for
offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. He was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-
under Section 302 IPC and further to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section
201 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State and perused the material available on
record.
3. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits
that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He
further submits that there is no mentioning about the appellant in
the entire F.I.R. He further submits that the learned Trial Court
has failed to appreciate the fact that there is no eye-witness to
the incident and there are material contradictions in the
evidences of the prosecution witnesses. He submits that there is
nothing on record to connect this appellant with the alleged
incident. On these grounds, he implored this Court to acquit this
appellant and allow this Criminal Appeal.
4. Per contra, learned P.P. representing the State opposes
this Criminal Appeal and submits that the prosecution has been
able to prove its case by adducing the witnesses before the Court
and all the material and witnesses have supported the facts which
were first recorded in the fardbeyan of the informant. He submits
that the place of occurrence has been proved by the prosecution
i.e. Kolambda forest. He further stated that the prosecution has
brought on record all the connected material exhibits and got it
proved by the relevant witnesses.
5. Facts of the case as delineated in the F.I.R. lodged at
the instance of the informant namely Kamla Devi, Chowkidarin
6/2, are that during patrolling, she got information that a dead
body of 35 years' unknown lady is lying in the Kolambda forest.
When the informant reached Kolambda forest, she found the dead
body who appeared to have been murdered a day before. The
informant found cut injuries on cheek, neck and head which
appeared to have been caused by sharp edged weapon. The
deceased was wearing a yellow coloured saree and blouse along
with an ornament of roll gold in her ear, nose and neck. The
deceased was 5' 3" long and her complexion was dark. The upper
teeth of the deceased were protruding outwards. None of the
villagers were able to recognize the deceased. In the meantime,
police came there and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant.
6. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Murhu P.S. Case
No.47/2014 was lodged and investigation was conducted. After
completion of the investigation charge-sheet against the appellant
- Santosh Kumar Sahu @ Santosh Kumar Sao, was submitted
under Section 302/201 of IPC. Thereafter the case was
committed to the Court of Session.
7. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 14
prosecution witnesses have been examined, deposition of whom
are hereunder:-
8. P.W.-1 namely Bheem Swansi, deposed that a dead
body of a ladywas recovered from the Kolambda jungle. He saw
the dead body and saw the injury on her head.
In cross-examination, he deposed that he was not
enquired by the police about this case.
P.W.-2 namely Kamla Devi, is the informant of this
case. She stated that she was posted as Chowkidar in Murhu
Thana. She has stated that she received information from the
police official that a dead body has been found in Kolambda
jungle. She along with police official reached Kolambda jungle
and found the dead body. Villagers did not recognize the dead
body. Panchnama of the dead body was prepared and fardbayan
was recorded.
P.W.-3 namely Jageshwar Mahto, has not supported
the prosecution story and has turned hostile.
P.W.-4 namely Abhiram Oraiya, has not supported the
prosecution story and has turned hostile.
P.W.-5 namely Jagdeesh Chandra Murmu, who was the
A.S.I. of Murhu Police Station stated that on receipt of
information about the dead body found in Kolambda forest, they
went to the forest and found the dead body of the lady having
head injury and her neck was slit. The inquest report was
prepared which was marked as Ext.2. Thereafter body was taken
for post-mortem.
P.W.-6 namely Vijay Saw, who is the maternal uncle of
the deceased, stated that his niece was married to the appellant
and both stayed together for two years at Harnaut and thereafter
shifted to Khunti. He got information that his niece was
murdered. Thereafter they caught the appellant from Railway
Station and handed him over to the Police.
The statement of P.W.-7 namely Lallu Saw, is similar to
that of the statement of P.W.-6. He repeated the fact of getting
information of murder of the deceased. He stated that they with
help of other relatives have caught the appellant from Railway
Station and handed over to the Police.
P.W.-8 namely Dr. Padam Prakash Sah, who conducted
the post-mortem on the body of the deceased has found following
injuries:-
i. An incised wound having size 2" x 1/2" x bone
deep on the left side of the forehead. Left side
forehead bone is fractured and blood clot and blood
was also found in the left cranial cavity.
ii. An incised wound having size 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" on
the right cheek below right eye.
iii. An incised wound having size 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4"
on the left cheek below left eye.
He opined that all above injuries are ante mortem in
nature and caused by sharp cutting substance. The cause of
death is Haemorrhage and shock. The post-mortem report was
marked as Ext.4.
P.W.-9 namely Goutam Kumar, who is the brother of
the deceased had stated that his sister has been married with the
appellant. He saw the dead body of his sister in Khunti.
Thereafter they took the dead body of his sister for cremation.
Thereafter, they came to Murhu Police Station and lodged the
F.I.R.
The statement of P.W.-10 namely Kundan Singh, who
was the Chowkidar 6/3, is same and similar to that of the
statement of the informant in the F.I.R. regarding the death of
the deceased, her injury and apparel.
P.W.-11 namely Praveen Kumar, who was the Officer
In-Charge, deposed that he recorded the fardbeyan of the
informant - Kamla Devi, who stated that a dead body of a lady
lying in the forest. He endorsed the fardbeyan which was marked
as Ext.1/1. He identified formal F.I.R. as Ext.5. He prepared
seizure list which was marked as Ext.3/2. He prepared the arrest
memo of the accused.
P.W.-12 namely Doman Swansi 2/2, who was the
Chowkidar in Murhu Police Station, has stated about the recovery
of dead body of a lady lying in the forest. He found the cut injury
on neck and other injuries on head and cheek.
P.W.-13 namely Sunita Devi, who is the mother of the
deceased, stated that her daughter was married to Santosh
Kumar Sahu. She stated that her daughter was taken to Khunti
by the appellant. She got information from mother of Santosh
Kumar Sahu that her daughter is missing. On receiving this
information, she tried to find out her daughter but she failed. She
came to know that the appellant is going somewhere and she
along with 4-5 persons went to Patna Railway Station and caught
the appellant and asked him about her daughter but he did not
give any answer. Thereafter they took the appellant to
Bakhtiyarpur, from where he was taken to Giriak Police Station.
P.W.-14 namely Stefen Ekka, deposed that he has
handed over the charge of investigation of this case by Officer-In-
Charge of Murhu Police Station. He went to the place of
occurrence with informant Chowkidarin Kamla Devi and armed
forces. He inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the
description of the place of occurrence which is Kolambda forest.
He stated that the recovery of dead body of the deceased was
stated by the informant and other witnesses. He re-examined the
informant and recorded statement of other witnesses i.e. P.W.-5,
P.W.-12, P.W.-1 and P.W.-10.
9. After closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses,
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant was taken
where he pleaded not guilty and denied the charges.
10. Several documents were also exhibited, which are as
hereunder:-
i. Ext.1 :- Fardbeyan of the informant
ii. Ext.1/1 :- endorsement of the case on the
fardbeyan along with fardbeyan
iii. Ext.2 :- Carbon copy of the inquest report
iv. Ext.3 :- Signature of Lalu Sao on seizure
list.
v. Ext.3/1 :- signature of Goutam Kumar on
the seizure list
vi. Ext.3/2 :- Seizure list
vii. Ext.4 :- post-mortem report
viii. Ext.5 :- formal F.I.R.
ix. Ext.6 :- confessional statement of
Santosh Kumar Sahu
x. Ext.7 :- memo of arrest of Santosh
Kumar Sahu
11. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence
of murder. To prove the homicidal death, the prosecution has
examined the Doctor (P.W.-8) who conducted the post-mortem on
the body of the deceased. He found three incised wound on the
head. The Doctor opined that all above injuries are ante mortem
in nature and caused by sharp cutting substance and cause of
death is Haemorrhage and shock. Thus, from the evidence, we
find that the homicidal death is proved by the prosecution. The
post-mortem report is marked as Ext.4.
12. Now, the question is about the involvement of this
appellant in the said occurrence. Admittedly, no one is the eye
witness to the occurrence of murder, and it is admitted that this
appellant is none but the husband of the deceased. The only
material against this appellant is that the in-laws presumed that
the appellant might have committed the murder. They also got
information that this appellant is fleeing to Delhi by Train when
they went to the Patna City Railway Station and caught this
appellant and brought him to the Police Station.
13. P.W.-7 stated that from the photograph which was
shown to him, he could come to know that the dead body which
was found is of the deceased.
From the evidence, it is clear that the dead body was
found in the forest area and a weapon was found next to the
dead body. It is also admitted that before this appellate was
arrested, the dead body and the weapon was recovered. Thus, it
is not a case where the weapon which was recovered next to the
dead body was recovered on the basis of the confessional
statement of the accused-appellant.
From the evidence, we find that it is just because the
appellant is the husband of the deceased and he was caught in
the Railway Station by the relative of the deceased, it was
presumed that the appellant had committed the murder and was
fleeing. In an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the duty
of the prosecution is to bring home the charge beyond shadow of
reasonable doubt. There cannot be any conjectures or surmises.
In a case based on circumstances, all the circumstances should
be linked and the chain of circumstances must be complete and
all the links of the chain should be proved.
From the evidence, we find that there is nothing to
suggest that there was any motive of the appellant to commit
murder of the deceased. Even the mother of the deceased stated
that her daughter and this appellant had visited their house two
times but there was no altercation between them.
P.W.-1 and P.W.-10 have stated in their evidence that
they were not examined by the Investigating Officer during
investigation, though the Investigating Officer stated that he has
recorded their statement. Thus, there is contradiction and there is
a doubt as to whether actually their statements have been
recorded or not. Thus, their statement before the police recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be looked into.
Further, we find that from the confessional statement
of the appellant, one murder weapon was recovered but the said
is not the same which was recovered next to the dead body of the
deceased, thus, there is also a doubt as to which is the actual
murder weapon used in commission of murder.
14. The Trial Court has relied upon the statement of P.W.-3
and P.W.-4, who were hostile witnesses, on the point that it is this
appellant who was seen with the deceased but from the evidence
of P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, we find that they had been declared hostile
and they have denied making any such statement that they had
seen the appellant in company with the deceased. The Trial Court
has erroneously relied upon the statement which these two
witnesses have denied.
15. Considering the aforesaid material, giving benefit of
doubt, since the prosecution has not been able to prove the
involvement of this appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt
and also could not prove the motive, we cannot hold the appellant
guilty for committing offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
16. Considering what has been held above, we find that
the appellant has made out a good case for acquittal. The
impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.08.2017 and order of
sentence dated 01.09.2017 passed by Learned Sessions Judge,
Khunti, in Sessions Trial No.74 of 2014, are hereby set aside. The
appellant is acquitted of the charges.
17. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
18. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court
concerned.
19. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Dated:- 16/10/2024
NAFR / Prashant
