Puran Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4562 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Puran Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 April, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 125 of 2025
                             ----

Puran Munda                     ...   ...      Appellant
                           Versus
The State of Jharkhand              ...   ... Respondent
                           -------

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

------

For the Appellant : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, APP

--------

CAV on 19/03/2025 Pronounced on 04/04/2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:

I.A. No. 12434 of 2024

Prayer

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on

behalf of appellant, under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 for

suspension of sentence dated 15.12.2023 passed by learned

District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti in S.T. Case

No. 186 of 2017 arising out of Karra P.S. Case No. 30 of 2017

corresponding to G.R. No. 161 of 2017, whereby and

whereunder, the appellant has been found guilty for the

offence under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, and

sentence to undergo for life imprisonment for the offence

under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.

10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) and in default of payment

of fine, further R.I. for two years. The appellant has been

further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence

under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.

2000 (Rs. Two Thousand) and in default of payment of fine

appellant shall have to further undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 6 months in addition to the

sentence.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the fardbeyan of

informant Prahalad Munda, recorded on 30.04.2017 at about

16:15 hours by Sub-Inspector, Uday Kumar Gupta, Officer-

in- charge of Karra PS, at Pithorbandh Dobha village Sirka

Garsul Siwana is that his niece Siniya Mundain was married

to the accused Puran Munda in the year 2008 and after one

year they were blessed with a son but unfortunately his niece

died after six months of the birth of her child.

3. After her demise they brought her child with them and

the child was brought up in their house. The deceased aged

about 07 years was reading in class-II at St. Anna Middle

School, Bingaon, Karra.

4. It is alleged that his father (accused/applicant) wanted

to take the child with him but the child did not want to go

with the accused for that reason the accused/ applicant was

annoyed with them and used to seldom visit his son.

5. It is further alleged that on 28.04.2017 at about 6:00

PM when the deceased did not return from the school in the

evening, they inquired from his classmates. It is alleged that

a girl student Suman Sanga of class-II and one Mahabir

Munda student of class-V told them that they had seen the

deceased going with the accused/applicant on his bicycle at

about 7:15 AM coming out from the school, who did not

return to school. Then the children had brought his school

bag and cycle to his house.

6. It is further alleged that the informant along with his

nephew Sanika Sanga went to the house of accused at village

Chalagi and inquired from him, who told him that he had

gone to the school at about 7:00 AM from there he took his

son (deceased) to a stationery shop in front of Bingaon Bank,

bought him three copies and dropped him to the school.

7. It is further alleged that on getting suspicion the

informant gave a written report going to the Police station on

29.04.17.

8. It is further alleged that the accused was apprehended

by the police at village Ghunsuli and on interrogation he told

the police that after buying copies he took the deceased to a

Dhobha (small pond) filled with water situated at

Pithorbandh at village Sirka Garsul Simana and drown him

to death in the Dobha and concealed his dead body under the

water by pressing the dead body with stone.

9. It is further alleged that on the disclosure of the

accused, the police recovered the dead body of the deceased

from the Dobha in presence of informant and others and also

recovered three new copies from a bush near the Dobha. It is

alleged that the murder was committed by the accused on

28.04.2017 at about 9:30 AM.

10. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan of informant, Karra

P.S. Case No. 30 of 2017, for the offence under section

302/201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on

30.04.2017 against the appellant.

11. After completion of investigation police submitted charge

sheet against the accused/applicant under Sections 302/201

IPC, accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken and the

case was committed to the court of sessions.

12. In order to substantiate the prosecution case,

prosecution has examined altogether eleven witnesses in

Session Trial and the learned trial court after appreciation of

evidence has found the charges levelled against the present

applicant proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly

the present applicant has been convicted and sentenced as

aforesaid.

13. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred

by the applicant/appellant with the prayer for the suspension

of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.

Submission by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant:

14. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has

submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and

order of sentence is perverse and based upon no evidence.

15. The learned trial court has not considered that

fardbeyan has been recorded at 16:15 hours dated

30.04.2017 but the FIR has been lodged at 20:30 hours dated

30.04.2017 and the confessional statement of the appellant

has been recorded at 14:30 hours dated 30.04.2017 which

shows that before recording the fardbeyan and lodging the

FIR confessional statement has been recorded this shows

that confessional statement is a manipulate one.

Furthermore, the seizure list also shows that the time at

16:50 hours and lodging of the FIR is at 20:30 hours so in

any circumstances seizure list cannot be prepared before

lodging of the FIR but that lacuna has not been taken into

consideration by the learned trial Court.

16. It has been submitted that the confession of the

applicant/appellant has been coerced and no recovery either

of the dead body or other incriminating articles were made on

his disclosure or on his instance as alleged and the seizure-

list is all fake and manipulated.

17. Further, the seizure list does not contain the seizure of

the deceased body and one of the seizure witness Sikandar

Mahto in Para-9 has stated that his signature was taken on

the seizure list in the police station.

18. The Investigating Officer of the case has nowhere stated

that the body was pressed under the stone as stated by the

informant of the FIR.

19. The informant, who is cousin grandfather (nana) of the

deceased, has nowhere stated about the motive of committing

murder by the appellant of his son and in fact at paragraph

13 of the cross examination, the informant P.W.-3 has

specifically deposed that the appellant was not having any

dispute with this son.

20. The informant in the FIR has stated that on 28-04-2017

at 06:00 the morning deceased left for the school, whereas in

the deposition he has stated the date of occurrence as 27-04-

2017 and on 29-04-2017 a written complaint was given to the

concerned police station, whereas on 30-04-2017 the

fardbeyan has been recorded, which castes doubt suspicion

on the veracity of the alleged offence.

21. Even the doctor has not found any injury on the body of

the deceased. The doctor has opined time of death 2 to 3 days

before as the postmortem has been conducted on 01-05-2017

and the date of occurrence is 27-04-2017, which shows that

the death was taken place four days prior to the postmortem,

but this fact has not been taken into consideration while

passing the impugned judgment of conviction.

22. Further submission has been made that as a matter of

fact, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and

furthermore no chain is complete even if the case is taken to

be the case of circumstantial evidence.

23. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted

that the appellant is in custody since 01.05.2017 for about

eight years.

24. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the

aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for

suspension of sentence.

Submission on behalf of respondent-State

25. While on the other hand, learned APP appearing for the

State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of

sentence and submitted that the matter was first informed to

the Police Station on 29.04.2017 and on police interrogation,

the appellant on 30.04.2017 confessed his guilt and on his

confessional statement (Ext. 2), the dead body was recovered

from the dobha (ditch) covered with stone under the water.

26. Further submission has been made that the witnesses

have given the graphic version about the circumstances in

which the deceased, the son of the appellant, was murdered

who was only seven years old.

27. So far minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses

are concerned, the witnesses/informant are the rustic

villagers, as such there may be some discrepancies but that

cannot deny the prosecution story and they are required to be

ignored, as guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond

reasonable doubt with cogent complete chain of

circumstantial evidence., which are conclusive.

Analysis

28. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the

impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as

available in the Lower Court Records.

29. Admittedly there is no direct evidence pointing out the

guilt of accused, the entire case was brought by the

prosecution appears to be based upon the circumstantial

evidence.

30. It needs to refer herein the settled position of law that if

a case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, then the

caution is to be given in judging the culpability of one or the

other accused person both by weighing the ocular and the

medical evidence, reference in this regard may be made to the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Madhu v. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399. For ready

reference, the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:-

5. The care and caution with which circumstantial evidence has to be evaluated stands recognised by judicial precedent. Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination that the inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion.

In the absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt.

31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Buddhadeb

Saha v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 145 has

specifically held that while dealing with a case of

circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be circumspect. For

ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as

under:

36. We are conscious of the legal proposition that while dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be circumspect. A note of caution was sounded by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P. [AIR 1963 SC 74] quoting (AIR p. 89 para 60) from R. v. Hodge [(1838) 2 Law CC 227]. "The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual the more likely was it, considering such matter, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete."

32. This Court, after having discussed the legal position as

has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court is now proceeding

to examine the factual aspect of the instant case based upon

the testimony of the witnesses both the ocular and the

medical evidences.

33. Admittedly herein the entire prosecution case is based

upon the confessional statement of the applicant/accused

and the said confessional statement as per the testimony of

P.W.1 has been recorded on 30.04.2017 at 14.30 P.M while

the fardbeyan of the informant has been recorded on

30.04.17 at 16.15 P.M and thereafter the FIR was instituted

on 30.04.2017 at 20.30 PM which shows the procedural

lacunae and in such circumstances the alleged confessional

statement of the accused cannot be fully reliable.

34. Further as per the opinion of P.W.5 i.e. doctor who had

conducted post-mortem on the deceased body, death was

caused by asphyxia due to abstraction of air passage caused

by drowning and in this regard the postmortem certificate,

Ext. 3, issued by him. Further in the inquest report it is no

where written that the dead body was recovered along with

the stone which is alleged to be tied with the deceased body.

35. Admittedly, the prosecution has not shown or proved

any strong motive with the accused to kill his own son which

is lacking in this case. It is settled connotation of law that in

the case of circumstantial evidence the motive is strong factor

while deciding the guilt of the accused person.

36. Further from record it is evident the appellant/applicant

in the custody since 01.05.2017.

37. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made herein above

and particularly taking in to consideration the custody of the

applicant/appellant as he is languishing in the custody for

almost 8 years is of the view that the present interlocutory

application may be allowed.

- 10 -

38. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is

allowed.

39. In view thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed

to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of learned District &

Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti in S.T. Case No. 186 of

2017 arising out of Karra P.S. Case No. 30 of 2017

corresponding to G.R. No. 161 of 2017.

40. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove

will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the

appeal is lying pending for its consideration.

       I Agree                         (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)



(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)         (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)


  Alankar/-


  A.F.R.




                              - 11 -