Baijnath Prajapati vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9307 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Baijnath Prajapati vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 September, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                  Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 34 of 2019
                                    .........
    Baijnath Prajapati, S/o Late Budhan Prajapati,
    R/o Village- Baratand, P.O.&P.S.- Barhi, District- Hazaribag
                                                              ..... Appellant(s)
                              Versus
    1.The State of Jharkhand
    2.Bijay Barnwal, S/o Late Jageshwar Barnwal
    3.Dablu Barnwal, S/o Late Jageshwar Barnwal
    Both R/o Village- Baratand, P.O. & P.S. Barhi, District- Hazaribag
    4.Nageshwar Prajapati, S/o Jagarnath Prajapati,
    R/o Kalali Road P.O. & P.S. Barhi, District- Hazaribag
                                                              .... Respondent(s)
                                    .........
     For the Appellant        : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate
     For the State            : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, AddI. Public Prosecutor
     For the Resp. Nos.2-4 : Mr. Sarju Prasad, Advocate
                                    -----------
                                   PRESENT
                               Sri Ananda Sen, J.
                       Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
                              JUDGMENT

18.09.2024 By Court.:

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, AddI. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Sarju Prasad.

2. The instant acquittal appeal is filed by the informant against the judgment of acquittal dated 30th January 2019 of respondent Nos.2 to 4, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in S.T. No. 276 of 2013.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, which was not duly considered by the Trial Court. The witnesses have stated that there was motive to kill the deceased. He further submits that the Trial Court failed to take into consideration that the oral evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. He further submits that there is no vital contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses rather there is consistence evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the place of occurrence and participation of the accused persons in committing the offence. He further submits that the dead body was kept on railway

track to mislead that death of Umesh Prajapati was caused in a railway accident.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Trial Court has correctly acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 4 as there is no direct evidence against them. This is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete. The prosecution has failed to produce consistent, reliable and trustworthy evidence against them.

There is a reasonable doubt created with regard to involvement of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in commission of crime. He further submits that there is considerable delay in filing of FIR and earlier a UD case was registered suspecting train accident where no suspicion was raised against them. Thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted respondent no. 2 to 4 as the prosecution failed to prove its case against them.

5. The case of the prosecution is based on written report dated 05.01.2013 of Baijnath Prajapati wherein he stated that his son was killed by some unknown persons on 23 11.2012. He stated that on 22.11.2012 at 07:00 P.M. Dablu Barnwal took Umesh Prajapati to Yuvraj Hotel, who returned at 08:00 P.M. and was under pressure. On asking, he told the informant that there was some arguments between him and Dablu Barnwal, Vijay Burnwal and other four person regarding business transaction. On 23.11.2012 his son took 15,000/-from his shop and went with Nageshwar Prajapati in a bike towards Barhi. At that time Dablu was also there across the road. At about 10:00 A.M., he got information that his son was murdered and his dead body was thrown in the railway track near Dasra holt.

6. On the basis of the written report Barkatha P.S Case No.01 of 2013 was registered under Sections 302/201/34 of IPC.

7. After investigation Chargesheet was submitted 302/201/34 of IPC and cognizance was taken. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions against and as respondent Nos.2 to 4 pleaded not guilty, charge were framed under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 against them and the trial proceeded.

8. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses, who are as follows:-

PW-1 Baijnath Prajapati, is the informant and father of the deceased. He deposed that Nageshwar Prajapati came to his house at 6 :00 am and took his son and Rs. 15,000 in a bike and after that his son did not return. He further deposed that people of Parsabad told him that a dead body is lying on the track of railways which was thrown there by some persons in a Maruti Car. He reached there with some persons and identified it as the dead body of his son which was cut in 3-4 pieces. Thereafter postmortem was conducted and the body was cremated. He thereafter lodged the FIR. He identified his signature in the written statement which was marked as Ext- 1. In cross examination he stated that his son had no dispute with Nageshwar and Nageshwar helped him in bringing the dead body.

PW-2 Sahdeo Prajapati is the elder brother of the deceased. He is a hearsay witness who stated that on 23.11.12 dead body of his brother was found in between Parsabad and Dasra halt and when he went there, he found the dead body in 2-3 pieces. His father informed him that his brother went with Nageshwar Prajapati.

PW-3 Indu Devi @ Ranju Devi is the wife of the deceased. She is also a hearsay witness. She only stated that a day before the incidence there was some argument regarding some transaction of money in Yuvraj Hotel and Bijay and Dablu Barnwal took the deceased there. In her cross examination she stated that there was no dispute in between her husband and Nageshwar.

PW-4 Rampati Yadav is the Investigating Officer. On 24.11.2012 he was given the charge of investigation of UD Case no. 5 of 2012 He stated that on 23.11.2012 Sahdeo Prajapati has given an application at Koderma Rail Thana that his brother received a call in his mobile and he left for Hazaribagh in his motorcycle and at about 12:30 A.M. information was received that the said motorcycle was parked near Dasra Halt and a dead body was lying near the railway track. He further stated that during the investigation of this case on 5.1.2013 Baijnath Prajapati registered a case being Barkatha P.S Case No.1 of 2013 and the investigation of that case was also handed over to him. He identified the signature of Kamal Narayan Singh on the written

information which was marked as Exhibit-1/1. He also identified the signature on the formal FIR which was marked as Exhibit-2. He has taken restatement of the informant and statement of the other witness. After investigation he submitted the chargesheet.

PW-5 Bandhan, is a hearsay witness who received information from the Station Master.

PW-6 Md. Razak Ansari is declared Hostile.

PW-7 Dr. Mithilesh Kumar is the Doctor who conducted the Postmortem Examination of the deceased. He found the following-

"Hair black, right eye closed. Head crushed with left eye ball out of socket.

Body is cut in two parts near abdomen with lacerated viscera. Left arm amputated from elbow. Right knee fractured. Multiple lacerated wound and fracture and abrasion of different size and shape but they appear to be postmortem in injury. No maggot seen in the body.

Dissection- Chest- heart ruptured, both lungs ruptured but no marked collection of blood in chest cavity. Abdomen - cut in two parts separating the body in two parts crushing major parts of intestine, mutilating liver, spleen, bladder and kidneys."

The doctor opined that the cause of death is head injury caused by heavy object resulting in cardiac Respiratory failure. Other injury mentioned are postmortem in nature. He identified the postmortem report which was marked as ext-3.

9. Following document were exhibited in court by the prosecution:-

1. Exhibit-1 signature of Sahdeo on typed petition

2. Exhibit-1/1 endorsement on typed petition

3. Exhibit-2 FIR

4. Exhibit-3 P.M Report

10. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of respondent Nos.2 to 4 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the trial court after considering the evidence acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 4 from the charges.

11. After going through the record and hearing both the counsel for the parties we find that at the initial stage when the body of the deceased was recovered near the railway track a UD Case was registered on the application of the elder brother of the deceased wherein, he didn't mention the name of any of the accused persons nor raised any

suspicion again anyone. When the FIR was lodged the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were implicated. Even the FIR was lodged after much delay i.e after cremation of the dead body. This shows that after deliberation a story was concocted and respondent Nos.2 to 4 were implicated in this case.

12. Further when we go through the deposition of the witnesses, we find that there is no eye witness to the said occurrence. The whole story of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. In a criminal case the burden is upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstance should be complete, where each of the circumstances should be conclusive in nature which should only point towards the guilt of the accused and nothing else. In this case the chain of circumstances is not complete, there are many loop holes which were not covered up by the prosecution.

13. Further the proposition of last seen lost its significance as there is considerable time gap in between the time when the deceased went with the respondents and the time when the dead body was found near the railway track. At best the only material against the accused is that they were last seen with the deceased. The court cannot convict an accused only on the basis of the "last seen" circumstance. There must be other evidence also conclusively pointing toward the guilt of the accused.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jabir and Others vs State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 32 at paragraph 28 held as under-

"28. This court is also of the opinion that apart from the above serious infirmities, there is no evidence, oral or any material object, which connects the appellant-accused with the crime. It has been repeatedly emphasized by this court, that the "last seen" doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the "last seen"

circumstance. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab,6 this court explained the soundness of such a rule:

"Without probing further into the correctness of the "last-seen"

version emanating from P.W. 14's evidence, even assuming that the deceased did accompany the accused in their vehicle, this circumstance by itself does not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Appellant and his companion had killed him and thrown the dead body in the culvert. It cannot be presumed that the Appellant and his companions were

responsible for the murder, though grave suspicion arises against the accused. There is considerable time-gap between the deceased boarding the vehicle of the Appellant and the time when P.W. 11 found the dead body. In the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence it is not possible to convict the Appellant solely on the basis of the "last-seen" evidence, even if the version of P.W. 14 in this regard is believed. In view of this, the evidence of P.W. 9 as regards the alleged confession made to him by the Appellant assumes importance."

15. In this case prosecution was also not able to prove the motive behind the occurrence. The dispute regarding business was not fully proved by the prosecution as when we go through the deposition of the witnesses PW-1 in his cross examination stated that his son has no dispute of any land with Nageshwar and even Nageshwar helped him in bringing the dead body. PW-3 also stated that there was no dispute in between her husband and Nageshwar.

16. Thus, after analyzing the evidences we come to a conclusion that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 4 from the charges. When two views are possible, in case of appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court should go with the judgment of the Trial Court. This case stands on a better footing as only one view is possible which the Trial Court has arrived at i.e of acquittal. In that view the judgment of acquittal dated 30th January 2019 of respondent Nos.2 to 4 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in S.T. No. 276 of 2013 needs no interference.

17. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

18. Let Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.

(Ananda Sen, J.)

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 18/09/2024 AFR /R.S./ Cp 03.