Jharkhand High Court
Rajkumar @ Kumar Rabidas Son Of Dhalo ... vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 12 June, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15359-DB )
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 143 of 1998 (R)
Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
04.04.1998 passed by Sri Kamla Prasad, learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Koderma in S. T. No. 258 of 1995.
---
1. Rajkumar @ Kumar Rabidas son of Dhalo Rabidas
2. Ram Chandra @ Chando Rabidas son of Dhalo Rabidas
Both of village Kalodih, PS Satgawan, District Koderma
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Dev, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
---
Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---
C.A.V. on - 16.12.2024 Pronounced on - 12.06.2025
Per, R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Rahul Dev, learned Amicus Curiae for the
appellants and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 04.04.1998 passed by Sri Kamla Prasad,
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma in S. T. No. 258 of 1995
whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the
offences under Sections 302/34, 201 and 452 of I.P.C. and have been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34,
rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 201 I.P.C. and rigorous
imprisonment for 3 years under Section 452 of I.P.C. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of a complaint case instituted
by Malti Devi in which it has been stated that the marriage of the
complainant was solemnized with Jagadish Rabidas about 10 years back.
Since the father of the complainant did not have a son, the husband of
the complainant stayed in the house of the father of the complainant as a
Ghar Jamai. The uncle and cousin brother of the complainant wanted to
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15359-DB )
commit the murder of the husband of the complainant in order to usurp
the entire property of the father of the complainant. The father of the
complainant on many occasions had made complaints to Satgawan
police station, but no step had been taken by the police to redress his
grievance. It has been alleged that on 08.05.1994 at 10:00 A.M., Dhalo
Rabidas, Rajkumar Rabidas, Chando Rabidas armed with sword and
gadasa had entered into the house of the complainant in search of the
father and husband of the complainant, but fortunately, they were not
present in the house. The accused persons had threatened that within 8
days, they would be murdered. On 10.05.1994, the accused persons had
once again entered into the house of the complainant and started
committing assault upon the complainant and her husband. Dhalo
Rabidas and Rajkumar Rabidas had thrashed the husband of the
complainant on the ground and Chando Rabidas with a stone used for
grinding spices struck him on his chest. Rajkumar Rabidas had climbed
on the chest of the husband of the complainant which resulted in blood
coming out of his mouth. The father of the complainant out of fear had
locked himself in another room. When the villagers assembled, the
accused persons fled away. The husband of the complainant was
admitted to the hospital, where he regained consciousness after two days
and the doctors had advised to take him for treatment to Nawada. Since
the complainant had shown her inability to take her husband to Nawada
for treatment on account of financial constraints, the accused persons
expressed their willingness to get him treated at Nawada. Consequently,
the husband of the complainant was taken to Nawada by the accused
persons for treatment. On 18.05.1994, Rajkumar Rabidas came and
informed the complainant that her husband is recuperating. The accused
no. 1 - Dhalo Rabidas had informed her that her husband will come
home on the next date, but when he did not come back, the complainant
had gone to Nawada hospital, where she came to know that no patient in
the name of her husband had been admitted in the hospital. The accused
persons were asked about the whereabouts of the husband of the
complainant, but no satisfactory reply could be given by them. On
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15359-DB )
30.05.1994, the complainant came to know that a person from Satgawan
was going for treatment to Nawada, but on the way he died and his dead
body was buried. When this information was given to the police station,
the same was not acted upon which resulted in the institution of the
complaint case.
The complaint was sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
resulting in institution of Satgawan P. S. Case No. 30 of 1994. 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. 258 of 1995. Charge was framed
against the accused persons under Section 147, 452, 302/34 of I.P.C. and
additional charge under Section 323 I.P.C. was framed against Jamuni
Devi, Rukwa Devi and Kalwa Devi and against Dhalo Rabidas, Rajkumar
Rabidas @ Kumar Rabidas, Ramchandra Rabidas @ Chando Rabidas
under Section 302 I.P.C., 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.
5. P.W. 1 - Rameshwar Yadav, P.W. 2 - Lakhan Paswan, P.W. 3
- Bhola Mushar, P.W. 4 - Sahdeo Prasad Yadav and P.W. 5 - Kishun
Mahto did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared
hostile by the prosecution.
6. P.W. 6 - Jagdish Rabidas has stated that the incident had
taken place in the house of Natho Rabidas. He was in his house adjacent
to the house of Natho Rabidas. The police had sent the Chowkidar to call
Jhalo Rabidas, who had replied that after committing the murder of the
son-in-law of Natho, he will come to the police station. After the
Chowkidar left, Jhalo Rabidas, Rajkumar Rabidas and Chando Rabidas
had entered into the house of Lato and brought Jagdish outside after
which Kumar and Jhalo thrashed Jagdish on the ground and climbed
upon his chest while Chando hit on the head of Jagdish with a grinding
stone. All the accused thereafter brought their wives who started
assaulting Jagdish with lathis. The villagers on hearing the sound of
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15359-DB )
alarm had arrived and pacified the situation. Some villagers carried
Jagdish to the police station.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that Jagdish is his son-in-law
in relation. He does not know as to who had filed the case. He also does
not know as to whether Jagdish was taken to the hospital or not.
7. P.W. 7 - Ramdhani Yadav has stated that about 3 years back,
he had seen the dead body being brought down from a bus near Daniyar
village. Natho Rabidas was crying and on being asked had disclosed
that the dead body was of his son-in-law who was being taken for
treatment to Nawada but on the way he died.
8. P.W. 8 - Kailash Rabidas has stated that about 3 years back,
he had seen Natho Rabidas and his wife taking away the dead body of
his son-in-law. They buried the dead body in the cremation ground at
Daniyar. His statement was recorded by the police.
9. P.W. 9 - Raghu Rajwar has stated that it was 2:00 P.M.
There was a quarrel between Natho Rabidas and his son-in-law Jagdish.
The wife of Dhalo has started throwing stones at him while Chando had
thrown stone on the chest of Jagdish. The accused persons had thrown
stones at Jagdish. He out of fear fled to his house.
10. P.W. 10 - Natho Rabidas is the father-in-law of the deceased
Jagdish who has stated that on 08.05.1994 at 2:00 P.M., Dhalo, Rajkumar
and Chando had come to his house and started assaulting his daughter
Malti. When his son-in-law Jagdish intervened, the accused persons left
his daughter and dragged Jagdish to the courtyard, felled him on the
ground and Rajkumar and Dhalo climbed on his chest. When he tried to
save his son-in-law, Chando hit him on his face which resulted in some
teeth being broken. He has stated that Chando has assaulted on the chest
of Jagdish with a grinding stone and Jagdish became unconscious. The
accused persons were trying to take him to their house for committing
his murder, but some villagers had arrived who saved him as the
accused persons had fled away. He has stated that Jagdish was taken to
the police station and thereafter to the hospital where doctors after
treating him had referred him to Nawada hospital. The police of
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15359-DB )
Satgawan police station had kept his son-in-law at the police station for
two days. The accused persons in the garb of getting his son-in-law
treated had took him. After two days, Chando Rabidas had told him that
within two days his son-in-law will come back. After 2-3 days he had
met Rajkumar Rabidas and Dhalo Rabidas, but they did not disclose
about the condition of his son-in-law. This created a suspicion in his
mind and when he, his daughter Malti Devi and his children went to
Sadar Hospital, Nawada they came to know that no one in the name of
his son-in-law has been admitted in the hospital. He did not get a trace
of the body of his son-in-law.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he and his daughter
were also assaulted by the accused persons. He had shown in the
hospital as well as to the police the 9 teeth which were broken due to
assault committed upon him. The doctor at Satgawan had given a
reference letter for taking Jagdish to Nawada. He had kept the letter in
his house and started making arrangement of funds for the treatment.
The accused persons had taken his son-in-law to Nawada for treatment.
The police has recorded his statement in the police station.
11. P.W. 11 - Vimla Devi has stated that about 3 years ago when
she was in her house at 2:00 P.M., Umar, Bajo, the brother-in-law of
Chando had come and Dhalo, Kumar Rabidas and Chando had
committed assault upon her son-in-law Jagdish. They had struck a
grinding stone on the chest of Jagdish. Jagdish was brought to the police
station, from where he was sent to a doctor for treatment. After three
days, Jagdish was referred to Nawada Hospital. She has stated that
Dhalo, Chando and Kumar had convinced her and her family not to go
to Nawada hospital as it were they who had committed the assault and it
was their responsibility to get him treated. The accused persons
thereafter had taken Jagdish to Nawada whereas she and others returned
back to Govindpur. When Chando returned, he was asked about the
condition of Jagdish to which he replied that he was fine. When her
husband and daughter went to Nawada hospital, they came to know that
no one in the name of her son-in-law was admitted in the hospital. When
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15359-DB )
no trace could be found of her son-in-law, a complaint case was
instituted. Since she has no son, she had kept her son-in-law as Ghar
Jamai.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that when the accused
persons had left her son-in-law, he was taken to Sambaldih for treatment,
who asked them to take him to Nawada for treatment. Her son-in-law
thereafter was taken on rickshaw to Madanjee and from there to
Govindpur hospital. From Govindpur they had taken Jagdish to
Nawada. All these while, the accused persons were not present. When
they reached village Daniyar, her son-in-law died. At Daniyar, the
accused persons had fled away with the dead body.
12. P.W. 12 - Malti Devi is the complainant/informant who has
been declared hostile as she has not supported the case of the
prosecution.
13. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the
death of Jagdish Rabidas.
14. It has been submitted by Mr. Rahul Dev, learned Amicus
Curiae that there are contradictions in the evidences of the prosecution
witnesses. The informant had not supported the case of the prosecution.
The Investigating Officer has not been examined which has caused
prejudice to the defence. The evidence of P.W. 6, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11
reveal about the absurdity of the story as despite their being a previous
enmity and the accused persons having committed such brutal assault,
they were still persuaded by the accused persons to take Jagdish to the
hospital at Nawada. It has been submitted that P.W. 11 has stated about
Jagdish having expired while he was being taken for treatment to
Nawada which runs contrary to the claim that it was the accused persons
who had taken him for treatment to Nawada.
15. Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State has stated that
the eye-witnesses account of P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 categorically reveal
about the appellant committing assault upon Jagdish Rabidas and the
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15359-DB )
involvement of the appellants in facilitating the disappearance of the
body of Jagdish Rabidas.
16. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides
and have also perused the trial court records.
17. The accused persons are said to have entered into the house
of the informant and had committed assault upon the husband of the
informant by climbing on his chest and striking him with a grinding
stone. After the initial treatment, he was referred to Nawada hospital
and on account of the uncalled for benevolence shown by the accused
persons which convinced the informant party, they had permitted the
accused persons to take him to Nawada hospital which later on turned
out to be a guise adopted by the accused persons as no such person on
enquiry was found to have been admitted at Sadar hospital, Nawada. It
would be evident that several of the prosecution witnesses including the
informant have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 7 & 8 who
are independent witnesses have not stated about any assault committed
by the accused persons. In fact, P.W. 8 has stated about P.W. 10 and P.W.
11 burying the dead body at Daniyar village. P.W. 7 has stated about the
dead body having been brought down from a bus and P.W. 10 has
disclosed about the death of his son-in-law who was being taken for
treatment to Nawada. P.W. 6 has claimed to be an eye-witness to the
incident, but he has shown his ignorance as to whether Jagdish Rabidas
was taken to hospital or not and about the author of the criminal case
instituted. This witness is also related to his namesake Jagdish Rabidas
who is said to have been murdered. P.W. 10 is the father-in-law of the
deceased who has stated about witnessing the assault. He was also
assaulted due to which his 9 teeth were broken, but the prosecution has
failed to bring any injury report on record. As per the complaint
petition, two days prior to the act of assault, the accused persons had
made a similar attempt, but due to sheer providence, the deceased and
P.W. 10 were saved since they were not present in the house. The lucky
escape of his son-in-law was however short-lived and after a few days he
died. The complaint petition reveals that the accused persons had a
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15359-DB )
greedy eye upon the property of P.W. 10 and that was the reason for the
incident. There appears to be an element of truth in the said assertion as
P.W. 10 has deposed that he had decided to give his property to his son-
in-law who was residing in his house as a Ghar Jamai. These facts are
being mentioned by us primarily to indicate that there was an existence
of animosity between both the sides and the false implication of the
accused persons therefore cannot be ruled out.
18. The aftermath of the purported assault appears to throw up
interesting contradictions. The accused persons after committing the
assault had expressed their desire to get Jagdish Rabidas treated at
Nawada. The informant family had readily agreed to such desire of the
accused persons to turn saviour which was quite odd in view of the
evidence of the witnesses. P.W. 11 is the mother-in-law of the deceased
who had given a contradictory version to the effect that she and her
family members were taking Jagdish Rabidas to Nawada for treatment
on a bus, but at village Daniyar he died and after which the dead body
was taken out from the bus and the accused persons had fled away with
it. Admittedly, the dead body was never recovered and though certain
leads were given by the witnesses, but the same did not yield any fruitful
result and such circumstances necessitated the examination of the
Investigating Officer. In fact, there are certain insinuation cast by some
of the witnesses upon the police that Jagdish Rabidas was kept at the
police station for a few days after the assault. It was only the
Investigating Officer who could have shed some light upon the
allegations. The defence was not able to confront the Investigating
Officer with the apparent contradictions appearing in the evidence of the
witnesses. The non-examination of the I.O. has therefore caused
prejudice to the defence.
19. In the case of "Krishnegowda and others Vs. State of
Karnataka" reported in (2017) 13 SCC 98, it was held as follows:
27. Generally in the criminal cases, discrepancies in
the evidence of witness is bound to happen because there
would be considerable gap between the date of incident
and the time of deposing evidence before the court, but if
these contradictions create such serious doubt in the mind
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15359-DB )
of the court about the truthfulness of the witnesses and it
appears to the court that there is clear improvement, then
it is not safe to rely on such evidence.
32. It is to be noted that all the eyewitnesses were
relatives and the prosecution failed to adduce reliable
evidence of independent witnesses for the incident which
took place on a public road in the broad daylight.
Although there is no absolute rule that the evidence of
related witnesses has to be corroborated by the evidence of
independent witnesses, it would be trite in law to have
independent witnesses when the evidence of related
eyewitnesses is found to be incredible and not
trustworthy. The minor variations and contradictions in
the evidence of the eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of
doubt in favour of the accused but when the contradictions
in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proves to be
fatal to the prosecution case then those contradictions go
to the root of the matter and in such cases the accused gets
the benefit of doubt."
20. The entire aspects of the case are consummated with serious
contradictions and infirmities as noted above and therefore, we in view
of the same set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 04.04.1998 passed by Sri Kamla Prasad, learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Koderma in S. T. No. 258 of 1995.
21. This appeal is allowed.
22. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the
liabilities of their bail bonds.
23. Pending I.A., if any stands closed.
24. We hereby take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance
rendered by Mr. Rahul Dev, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the
Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the
stipulated fees to the learned Amicus Curiae within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 12th day of June, 2025
R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3
