Shyam Rout @ Sai Rout vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
2025 Latest Caselaw 1705 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shyam Rout @ Sai Rout vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 14 January, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                   Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 493 of 1997(P)
              Against the judgment and order of conviction and
         sentence dated 09.09.1997 passed by Shri Amod Prasad
         Ram, learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in
         Sessions Case No. 115 of 1995/ 75 of 1995.

        Shyam Rout @ Sai Rout, R/o Vill- Boradangal,
        P.S.Raneshwar, Dist.-Dumka               ...   Appellant
                                    Versus
        The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)        ...   Respondent
                                    ----

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

----

For the Appellant : Mr. R.R. Mishra, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.

----

Dated: 14/01/2025 Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Special P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09-09-1997 passed by Sri Amod Prasad Ram, learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 115 of 1995/ 75 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Prabhati Tiwari in which it has been stated that on 28-06-1994, Shyam Rout(appellant) had come to the house of the informant and asked her husband Shanti Ram Tiwari to accompany him to Nandna village to the house of Mathan Rout to discuss about some marriage related issues. Though, the husband of the informant showed his reluctance, but on Shyam Rout's insistence, he was taken by Shyam Rout on his bicycle to Adalat Rout and Kailash Rout, where the husband of the informant was given Rs. 300/- and was told to give the said amount to Mathan Rout after the marriage talks culminate. Thereafter, the husband of the informant was taken to Nandana village by Shyam Rout. It has been alleged that on 29-06-1994 at 8:00 AM, the informant received an information from Lakhan Rout that her husband had all of a sudden fallen sick and he was being taken in a bullock cart to Paljor Hospital. At this information, the brother-in-law of the informant along with Adalat Tiwari had reached Paljor More on bicycles, where Mathan Rout disclosed that the husband of the informant has been taken to Suri. When they reached Sadar Hospital, Suri they met Shyam Rout, Ram Rout and the brother-in-law of Mathan Rout, who disclosed that the husband of the informant has died. The post-mortem of the husband of the informant was conducted at Suri and thereafter, his dead body was brought home where he was cremated on 30-06-1994. It has been stated that from the post-mortem report it appears that death was caused due to pressure on neck.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Raneshwar P.S. Case No. 45/94 was instituted under Section 302 IPC. 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 Sessions Case No. 115 of 1995/75 of 1995. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 and 120B IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case.

P.W.1 Haradhan Tiwari did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.

P.W.2 Dubai Tiwari has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.3 Adalat Rout did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.

P.W.4 Tarni Tiwari has stated that he had come to know that his brother Shanti Ram Tiwari had gone to Nandana with Shyam Rout to have some conversation on account of the impending marriage of the brother-in-law of Mathan Rout and later on, he fell sick and was taken to the hospital. He has stated that he had gone to Paljor and then to Suri where he found his brother dead. He had seen at Suri

2|Page Shyam Rout, Ram Rout and Bhujal. He does not know as to how his brother has died.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that his brother used to be ill and sometimes would become unconscious.

P.W.5 Prabhati Tiwari is the informant and wife of the deceased who has stated that it was a Tuesday when at around 2:00PM Sai Rout alias Shyam Rout came to her house and asked her husband to accompany him for some marriage talks. Her husband, who is a priest went with Shyam Rout on a bicycle. Her husband did not come back on the same day and in the next morning Lakhan informed him that her husband is unwell and he was being taken to the hospital. She has stated that her husband was initially taken to Paljor Hospital and later on to Suri Hospital. She, along with her brothers-in-law went to Paljor and thereafter to Suri where she saw the dead body of her husband. She proved her signature in her written report which has been marked as Exhibit-7.

P.W.6 Kailash Rout has stated that a priest namely Shanti had gone to the house of Mathan at Nandana with Shyam Rout and on the next day, Lakhan informed him that the priest is unwell. He had not gone to see the priest.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that Mathan had sent Sai Rout to see as to why the priest is late in coming to his house.

P.W.7 Bakil Santra has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.8 Hari Shadhan Rout has been tendered by the prosecution P.W.9 Mansha Ram Sikdar was declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.10 Ashutosh Choudhury has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-2.

P.W.11 Manoj Kanti Dutta was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Suri and on 29-06-1999, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shanti Ram Tiwari and had found the following:

(i) Skull membranes were congested. Both lungs were

3|Page congested. There was clotted blood in the heart. In the mouth there was froth. In stomach there was food material. Liver spleen and kidneys were congested. There was fracture of the hyoid bone right collar.

(ii) On dissection of the neck there was subcutaneous hemorrhage. There was no other external or internal injury detected.

The cause of death was opined to be due to asphyxia as a result of pressure over neck which was anti-mortem and homicidal in nature. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-3.

P.W.12 Balmiki Kumar was posted at Raneshwar P.S., who has proved the endorsement in the First Information Report which has been marked as Exhibit-5. After he was given the charge of investigation, he had recorded the restatement of Prabhati Tiwari and had inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of Mathan Rout at village Nandana. There is a room on the South East side whose door opens towards the village road and this was the room where Shanti Ram Tiwari was said to have been murdered. The witness Haradhan Tiwari had stated that Ram Rout, Mathan Rout, Shyam Rout and Bhujal Rout had committed the murder by pressing the neck of Shanti Tiwari and he was also poisoned. After the investigation was complete, he had submitted charge sheet.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the case was instituted after one month of the occurrence. He had not seized any article in this case.

On Court question, he has submitted that he had obtained the photocopy of the post-mortem report in which mention was made of U.D. Case No. 11/94.

5. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the murder.

6. It has been submitted by Mr. R.R. Mishra, learned counsel

4|Page appearing for the appellant that there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the appellant has been implicated for having been last seen with the deceased. He has submitted that the First Information Report was instituted after a month from the date of the incident and no explanation has been given by the prosecution with respect to such delay

7. Mr. Vinit Kumar Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. has countered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant by stating that the death of Shanti Ram Tiwari was in close proximity to his being last seen with the deceased and the accusations against the appellant in such circumstances, stands proved. It has been submitted that only after the post-mortem report was prepared, it came to light about the cause of death which was homicidal and this was the reason for the delay in lodging the FIR.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records.

9. It is the case of the prosecution that it was the appellant who had come to the house of Shanti Ram Tiwari and had taken him away to Nandana village to the house of Mathan Rout. Shanti Ram Tiwari fell ill and initially he was taken to Paljor Hospital and thereafter to Sadar Hospital, Suri where after his death, post-mortem was conducted. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The person who had informed the informant about the medical condition of the deceased has not been examined by the prosecution. The person who had stated before P.W.12 (I.O.) about the murder committed by the appellant and others, namely, Haradhan Tiwari has been declared hostile by the prosecution. In fact, most of the prosecution witnesses have either been declared hostile by the prosecution or have been tendered. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are supposedly the material witnesses of the prosecution, but their evidence does not hint at any role played by the appellant in the murder of Shanti Ram Tiwari save and except the appellant being last seen with the deceased. The written report is dated 30-07-1994 speaking about an incident which occurred on 28-06-1994 and no explanation

5|Page whatsoever has been furnished by the prosecution for such delay. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes considerable significance but neither in the written report nor in the evidence of the witnesses there is even a hint or suggestion about any motive on the part of the appellant to have taken recourse to such drastic act. In fact, as per P.W.5 (informant), the appellant had accompanied the dead body to her house and as per P.W.4, he was also present at Suri Hospital. This conduct of the appellant coupled with the absence of any circumstances delineating his role in the murder vaporizes the submissions of learned Spl. P.P. that the involvement of the appellant is apparent considering the proximity of the death to the time the deceased was last seen with the appellant.

10. The learned trial court has failed to take into consideration the vital aspects of the case which has been noted above and consequently, we set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09-09-1997 passed by Sri Amod Prasad Ram learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 115 of 1995/75 of 1995.

11. This appeal is allowed.

12. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 14th Day of January, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.

6|Page