Jharkhand High Court
Sukhram Bhakat @ Sukhram Bhagat @ Sukram ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 September, 2024
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.806 of 2015
Sukhram Bhakat @ Sukhram Bhagat @ Sukram Bhagat, S/o Bhola
Nath Bhakat, resident of Golkatta, Mango (M.G.M.), P.O. and P.S.
Mango (M.G.M.), District East Singhbhum. ----- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ----- Respondent
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.
-------
CAV on 13.06.2024 Pronounced on 09/09/2024
JUDGMENT
Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned
A.P.P assisted by Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the informant.
2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence dated 28.08.2015 (sentence passed on
02.09.2015) passed by Shri Nikesh Kumar Sinha, Learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.T.
No. 04 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default in payment of fine,
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbeyan of
Lakhi Pad Bhakat recorded on 05.10.2012 wherein it has been
stated that at around 1.30 P.M. his father had left the house for the
house of Sharad Pramanik for making payment of the dues for
purchasing chicken. It has been alleged that after 10-15 minutes
Shankar Pramanik had raised an alarm that Sukhram Bhakat
(appellant) has committed the murder of Suchan at which he, his
mother Kavita and several persons came out of their house and
found Suchan Bhakat lying dead with his head severed from the
body. The reason for the occurrence is on account of a dispute with
respect to partition of property.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Mango (M.G.M.) P.S.
Case No.484 of 2012 was instituted under Section 302 I.P.C
against Sukhram Bhakat. On completion of investigation, charge
sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was
committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as S.T.
No.04 of 2013. Charge was framed under Section 302 I.P.C. which
was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses
in support of its case.
6. P.W. 1 Kavita Bhakat has stated that the incident had
occurred on 05.10.2012 at 1.30 P.M. Her husband had gone to
Upar Toli in the chicken shop of Sharad Pramanik and she had
also accompanied her husband. She has stated that Sukhram
Bhakat had brought a chopper from his house and assaulted her
husband on the neck with the said Chopper. The assault was
committed due to previous enmity.
In cross-examination she has deposed that she was
present at the place of occurrence when the incident had occurred.
She does not know the reason for the enmity. She had given her
statement to the Police depicting herself as an eye-witness.
7. P.W.2 Shankar Pramanik has stated that on 5.10.2012
at 1.30 P.M. he was in his house having lunch when he heard a cry
of alarm. At this he came outside and found that the head of
Suchan has been severed from his body and Sukhram was
standing with a chopper. There were marks of blood on the chopper
as well as on the clothes of Sukhram. He out of fear went back to
his house, closed the door and fled away from the back side.
In cross-examination he has deposed that he had not
witnessed anybody assaulting Suchan. He had come out of his
house on hearing the cry of alarm and he had found Suchan lying
dead.
8. P.W. 3 Niranjan Mahto has stated that on 5.10.2012 he
was called by Devendra Bhakat over phone and when he went to
the place of occurrence, he had found the dead body lying on the
floor. He has identified his signature in the inquest report which
has been marked as Ext.1. This witness was declared hostile by the
prosecution.
9. P.W.4 Sharad Pramanik had not supported the case of
the prosecution and was also declared hostile by the prosecution.
10. P.W. 5 Niranjan Bhakat has stated that about 1 - 1 and
½ years back he had come to know that the murder of Suchan
Bhakat has been committed in front of the shop of Sharad
Pramanik. He does not know about the dispute between both the
sides.
In cross-examination he has deposed that his statement
was not recorded by the Police.
11. P.W. 6 Budheshwar Bhakat is the brother of the
deceased who has stated that on the date of occurrence his brother
had gone to the house of Sharad Pramanik to clear his dues with
respect to purchase of chicken. Sukhram Bhakat had given a
murderous assault upon Suchan Bhakat with a Chopper and after
washing his hands he had fled away. He had witnessed the
incident. The Police had seized the Chopper and he had given his
thumb impression over the seizure list.
In cross-examination he has deposed that the Police
had not recorded his statement. He has denied that he, the
informant and his sister-in-law and the villagers had reached Upar
Basti after the occurrence.
12. P.W. 7 Deven Bhakat has stated that on 05.10.2012
while he was returning home he had seen the dead body of Suchan
Bhakat lying in front of the house of Sukhram Bhakat. He has
proved his signature in the inquest report which has been marked
as Ext.1/1.
In cross-examination he has deposed that his statement
was recorded by the Police.
13. P.W. 8 Dulal @ Muni Bhakat did not support the case of
the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.
14. P.W.9 Lakhi Pad Bhakat is the informant of the case
who has stated that on 05.10.2012 at about 1.30 P.M. he was in
his house when his mother Kavita Bhakat came and disclosed that
his father has been murdered by Sukhram. He had gone with his
relatives to the place of occurrence where he found his father lying
dead. There was a previous enmity between his father and
Sukhram. He has identified his signature in the Fardbeyan which
has been marked as Ext.2.
In cross-examination he has reiterated that he was at
home when the incident had taken place. He had told the Police
that on hearing the cry of alarm he, his mother Kavita Bhakat,
Jaichand Bhakat, Budheshwar Bhakat and other villagers had
gone to Upar Basti where they had seen his father lying dead. He
has deposed that there was a previous enmity between both the
sides since long.
15. P.W. 10 Dilip Gagrai had taken over the investigation of
the case. He has proved the Fardbeyan which has been marked as
Ext.2/1. The endorsement in the Fardbeyan has been proved and
marked as Ext.2/2. He has also proved the formal F.I.R. which has
been marked as Ext.3 and the carbon copy of the inquest report
which has been marked as Ext.1/2. He had inspected the place of
occurrence which is at village Golkatta near the house of Shankar
Pramanik. He has proved the seizure list of blood stained earth
which has been marked as Ext.4. The chopper was seized on the
basis of the confessional statement of the accused from his house.
The confessional statement of the accused has been proved and
marked as Ext.5. He has also proved the seizure list of the Chopper
which has been marked as Ext.6. The blood stained earth and
chopper were sent to the FSL for chemical examination and the
application submitted by him has been marked as Ext.7. He had
obtained the post-mortem report and had thereafter submitted
charge sheet against Sukhram Bhakat.
In cross-examination he has deposed that Kavita
Bhakat had stated that on alarm she, Lakhi Pad Bhakat, her
brother-in-law and several villagers had gone to Upar Basti where
they found Suchan dead. Shankar Pramanik had never disclosed
that Sukhram Bhakat was standing with a chopper in front of the
deceased and that there were blood stains on the chopper and
wearing apparels of Sukhram Bhakat. The brother-in-law of Kavita
namely Budheshwar Bhakat had not disclosed about he having
witnessed the incident.
16. P.W. 11 Dr. J.S. Rao was posted as a Tutor in the
department of FMT at MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur and on
06.10.2012 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Suchan
Bhakat and had found the following external injuries:-
(i) Abrasion 6 cm X 5 cm over right side of forehead just
above right eyebrow.
(ii) Abrasion 5 cm X 3 cm over right side of the face near
right side of the chick.
(iii) Incised wound 13 cm X 12 cm X through and through
over lower most part of head 22 cm below mendable
border (upper 6 cervical vertebra attached to it.
(iv) Incised wound 2 ½ cm X 1 cm X skin deep under chin.
(v) Incised wound 13 ½ cm X 13 cm X through and
through adjacent to lower part & neck.
(vi) Incised wound 7 cm X 3 cm X muscle deep over right
front upper chest adjacent injury no.5.
(vii) Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x skin deep, 5 ½ cm x 1 cm
x skin deep, 2 cm x 1 cm x skin deep over left front
upper chest just below left shoulder.
(viii) Abrasion 8 cm x 2 ½ cm over left back chest.
Internal Injuries
(i) Incised cut of skin muscle small & large blood vessels,
trachea, larynx, food pipe and under cervical vertebra at
the level of upper border of 6 CV (upper sixth) cervical
vertebra attached to the head.
The cause of death was opined to be due to severance of
head from the trunk. Injury no. (iii) to (vii) were caused by heavy
sharp cutting weapon while injury no. (i), (ii) and (viii) were caused
by hard and blunt object. He has proved the post-mortem report
which has been marked as Ext.8.
17. P.W. 12 Jaichand Bhakat has stated that he had gone
for work when his wife had informed him over phone that Suchan
Bhakat has been murdered. The incident occurred because of a
land dispute between his brother Suchan Bhakat and Sukhram
Bhakat.
18. P.W.13 Ram Darsh Ram has produced a chopper in
court which has been marked as material Ext.I. The blood stained
earth produced in an envelope was marked as material Ext.-II.
19. The statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the
incident.
20. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been
implicated only on the basis of the suspicion without there being
any evidence worth consideration. It has been submitted that the
post-mortem report also does not support the manner of
occurrence as depicted by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 and P.W.9. The
purported land dispute between the appellant and the deceased
has also not been conclusively proved by the prosecution.
21. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P has submitted
that apart from the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the recovery of a
blood stained chopper from the house of the appellant on his
pointing out demarcates in clear terms of the assault committed by
the appellant upon the deceased leading to severance of his head
from the trunk.
22. Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
informant has adopted the submissions advanced by the learned
A.P.P.
23. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective
sides and have also perused the trial court records.
24. As per the case of the prosecution the involvement of
the appellant in committing the murder of Suchan Bhakat has
surfaced on account of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6.
P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased while P.W.6 is the brother of the
deceased and both claimed themselves to be the eye-witnesses
while P.W.2 on coming out from his house on hearing the cry of
alarm had seen the appellant standing in front of the deceased with
a chopper having blood on it while there were blood stains also on
the wearing apparels of the appellant. The story depicted in the
Fardbeyan of P.W.9 seems to reveal otherwise as P.W.1 and P.W.6
on hearing the cry of alarm had come out from the house and had
seen Suchan Bhakat dead. In his evidence also P.W.9 has more or
less been consistent with the version depicted in the Fardbeyan.
His evidence therefore rules out P.W.1 and P.W.6 as eye-witnesses.
This gains credence from the evidence of the Investigating Officer
(P.W.10) who has stated in categorical terms that P.W.1 and P.W.6
had in their statements not disclosed about they having witnessed
the incident. So far as the P.W.2 is concerned, he had also not
stated before P.W.10 that he had seen the appellant standing in
front of the deceased with a blood stained chopper in hand. It is
thus manifestly clear that P.W. 1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 are not the eye-
witnesses but seems to have developed their version during trial
while implicating the appellant. The other aspect of the prosecution
case is the purported recovery of a chopper from the house of the
appellant in his confessional statement. The seizure list witnesses
have not depicted from which place the chopper was recovered.
Mere mention of the blood of human origin found on the chopper as
per the FSL report would not be enough to convict the appellant in
absence of any other material substantiating such finding. In fact
the colour of the prosecution case seems to have developed a
different hue when we consider the case in its totality. The head of
the deceased was severed from the trunk by axe blow but after
finding incised wounds attributed to heavy sharp cutting weapon
some injuries on account of assault with hard and blunt substance
were also detected and which has not been suitably explained by
the prosecution. When a case is based only upon circumstantial
evidence, motive assumes considerable significance but save and
except previous enmity due to land dispute as vaguely stated by
some of the witnesses, nothing of substance has been brought
forward by the prosecution to enhance the motive attributed to the
appellant. Even P.W.1 wife of the deceased has feigned ignorance
regarding the reason for previous enmity.
25. The discussions epitomised above would lead to a
conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its
case against the appellant and consequently we set aside the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.08.2015
(sentence passed on 02.09.2015) passed by Shri Nikesh Kumar
Sinha, Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 04 of 2013.
26. This appeal is allowed.
27. Since the appellant is in custody, he is directed to be
released immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any other
case.
28. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Shamim/-
