Patna High Court
Ajit Singh @ Shutarwa @ Ajeet Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 3 January, 2024
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.822 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-369 Year-2016 Thana- BARAUNI District- Begusarai
======================================================
Ajit Singh @ Shutarwa @ Ajeet Kumar, Son of Suresh Singh, R/o Village-
Bishanpur, P.S.- Barauni Chakia, District- Begusarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 824 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-369 Year-2016 Thana- BARAUNI District- Begusarai
======================================================
Bihari Mishra, S/o Chumman Mishra, R/o Village- Bishanpur, P.S. - Barauni
Chakia, Dist. - Begusarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 840 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-369 Year-2016 Thana- BARAUNI District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Amit Kumar, S/o Umesh Singh,
2. Pappu Singh @ Chhipia, S/o Pramod Singh,
3. Rajesh @ Bhulla @ Rajesh Bhullu, S/o Mahendra Singh,
All are R/o Village- Bishanpur, P.S.- Barauni Chakia, Dist- Begusarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 822 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rabindra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rameshwar Thakur, Advocate
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.822 of 2017 dt.03-01-2024
2/13
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 824 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ram Prakash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rameshwar Thakur, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 840 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rabindra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rameshwar Thakur, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 03-01-2024
1. All the three appeals have been taken up
together and are being disposed off by this common
judgment.
2. We have heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, the
learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rabindra Kumar
and Mr. Ram Prakash Kumar, the learned Advocates for
the appellants in all the three appeals. The State has
been represented by Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned
APP.
3. The appellants (five in number) have been
convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.822 of 2017 dt.03-01-2024
3/13
Code vide judgment dated 22.05.2017, passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in connection with
Sessions Case No. 191 of 2017 (CIS No. 199 of 2017),
arising out of Barauni (FCI- O.P.) P.S. Case No. 369 of
2016. By order dated 24.05.2017, all the appellants
have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the
IPC.
4. It is an illustrative case where the police has
chosen to adopt a shortcut in the investigation which
becomes very apparent with the manner in which the
prosecution case has unfolded before the Trial Court.
5. One Ram Charitra Thakur (P.W. 2) lodged
the fardbeyan which was recorded by S.I. Sailesh Kumar
(P.W. 5) in which he has alleged that his co-
brother/Rajendra Thakur and his grandson/Nakul Thakur
had come to meet him and his family on 16.10.016.
After dinner, both the visitors retired to their rooms.
Later, the daughter-in-law of Ram Charitra Thakur, viz.,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.822 of 2017 dt.03-01-2024
4/13
Shyama Bharti (P.W. 1) got up early in the morning only
to find the doors of their rooms open ajar. They were not
to be found in the house. A search was made for them
but to no avail. Later, in the wee hours only, P.W. 2 was
informed that two dead bodies are lying at a distance of
about 500 metres from his house. P.W. 2 along with
others went to the place and found that the dead bodies
were of the visitors, viz., Rajendra Thakur and his
grandson/Nakul Thakur. Both of them appeared to have
been shot dead.
6. So far as the cause of occurrence is
concerned, P.W. 2 has categorically stated that earlier in
the year 2014, he had filed a case against the
appellant/Ajit Singh with a quirky alias name, in which
case, he had to go to jail.
7. Recently, aforenoted appellant/Ajit Singh
along with other appellants had been making a
reconnaissance visit in and around the house of P.W. 2;
perhaps for the purposes of threatening the family as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.822 of 2017 dt.03-01-2024
5/13
also for securing ransom amount. It, therefore, appeared
to P.W. 2 that in order to instill fear in his mind, the
aforenoted occurrence had taken place.
8. On the basis of the aforenoted fardbeyan
statement, Barauni P.S. Case No. 369 of 2016, dated
16.10.2016
was registered for investigation.
9. The police after investigation submitted
charge-sheet against the appellants; all of whom were
then put on Trial.
10. The Trial Court after having examined
five witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, convicted
and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.
11. Though a suspicion has been raised in
the FIR against appellant/Ajit Singh and his associates,
but it was only a guess-work when the FIR was lodged.
Shorn of repetition, the daughter-in-law of P.W. 2 (who
has been examined as P.W. 1 in the Trial) first spotted
that the visitors/deceased were not there in their
respective rooms where they had retired last night. She
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.822 of 2017 dt.03-01-2024
came down the stairs and informed P.W. 2 (her father-
in-law). Later, on information to the family about two
unknown dead bodies lying near the house, the dead
bodies were identified to be that of the deceased persons
of this case.
12. A complete summer-sault was then
taken by Shyama Bharti (P.W. 1) that in fact, she had
seen two of the appellants, viz., Bihari Mishra and Ajit
Singh having pointed fire-arm weapons against the two
deceased. She pleaded with them but was threatened of
dire consequences. She and her husband/Santosh Kumar
Thakur (P.W. 4) became very afraid and, therefore, did
not take the name of the aforenoted two appellants
before Ram Charitra Thakur (P.W. 2) who had lodged
the FIR. Ram Charitra Thakur himself has stated before
the Trial Court that after many days of lodging of the
FIR, his daughter-in-law (P.W. 1) had made such a
disclosure.
13. This appears to be rather curious.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.822 of 2017 dt.03-01-2024
14. It appears that even though suspicion
was raised on the two appellants named above and their
cohorts, but that was only on the basis of a rough guess
of P.W. 2 and nothing more.
15. It appears that the names of the
appellants had transpired only when two of them, viz.,
Bihari Mishra and Ajit Singh were arrested by the police
on 25.10.2016 in connection with a secret information
regarding their being in possession of fire-arms.
16. We have examined the arrest memo of
the aforenoted two appellants, which clearly discloses
that they were arrested on suspicion and from their
possession, fire-arms were recovered. It was only after
their arrest that P.W. 1 claims to have made a
statement, hitherto never made before the police, that
she had seen the two aforenoted appellants in her house
who had pointed their respective weapons at the two
deceased.
17. The story, therefore, is completely
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.822 of 2017 dt.03-01-2024
unbelievable. This appears to be the handiwork of the
police for closing the investigation.
18. It further appears from the records as
also from the deposition of the witnesses that the
aforenoted two appellants, after their arrest, made
certain disclosures/confession, on the basis of which the
police had proceeded in the matter.
19. We say so for the reason that Shyama
Bharti (P.W. 1) has categorically stated that she never
spoke before the police about her having identified the
appellants (Bihari and Ajit) having scaled over the house
and taken away the two deceased persons in the dead of
the night. This story was woven only after two of the
aforenoted appellants were arrested by the police in
connection with some other case.
20. What could be a more brazen attempt
of the police to subvert the investigation and that also in
such an unprofessional manner?
21. To test the veracity of the case further,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.822 of 2017 dt.03-01-2024
we have examined in detail the deposition of the
Investigating Officer of this case, viz., Shailesh Kumar
(P.W. 5). He admits of two of the persons (Bihari and
Ajit) having been arrested in connection with some
suspicion whereafter those persons had confessed about
their participation in the killing of the deceased. The
investigating agency did not at all consider it necessary
to inquire about the relationship of the deceased with the
family of the informant (P.W. 2), which was extremely
necessary.
22. If suspicion against Bihari and Ajit was
raised at the time of lodging of the FIR for P.W. 2
having earlier lodged a case against Ajit, the enmity
stood between Ajit, his brigand and P.W. 2 only.
23. Admittedly, both the deceased persons
are not residents of the State of Bihar. They perhaps are
residents of West Bengal. They do not also appear to
have been ransacked. Whether they were taken away
from the house of P.W. 2 and then killed on the road is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.822 of 2017 dt.03-01-2024
also very doubtful. Our reason for saying so is that the
I.O. (P.W. 5) did not find any blood mark at the place
where the dead bodies were found. Both the persons had
been shot in their head. Even the inquest report refers to
copious bleeding. That the I.O. did not find any blood at
the place where the dead bodies were found is a clear
indication of the fact that the deceased had been killed
somewhere else.
24. The house of P.W. 1 was also inspected
during the course of investigation. There were no signs
of forcible entry as claimed later by P.Ws. 1 and 2, both,
that the back door was broken open by the miscreants.
25. It appears that perhaps the appellants
did not enjoy good reputation in the locality and,
therefore, an attempt was made to solve the mystery of
these two murders by putting words in the mouth of the
witnesses. Holding back such necessary information
about the case by the father-in-law-daughter-in-law
dyad on the ground of their being petrified, is highly
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.822 of 2017 dt.03-01-2024
unacceptable. The fear curiously appears to have been
quelled only after the arrest of the two of the appellants.
This appears to be paranormal, suggesting very strange
coincidence.
26. The prosecution, therefore, has not
been able to prove the case on any score: be it
accusation or circumstances from where the guilt of the
appellants could have been driven home.
27. We have no hesitation in holding that
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case.
The conviction of the appellants is based solely on the
guess-work of P.W. 2, aided by the unprofessional
approach of the police. That the location of one of the
appellants was found near the dead body, as was
analyzed from the C.D.R., is not admissible in evidence
for the requirements under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 have not been complied with.
28. Even otherwise, that would not improve
the prosecution case even a tad more.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.822 of 2017 dt.03-01-2024
29. We have, thus, no hesitation in setting
aside the judgment and order of conviction and
acquitting all the appellants of the charge of murder.
30. We order accordingly.
31. The appeals stand allowed.
32. The appellants, viz., Bihari Mishra, Amit
Kumar, Pappu Singh @ Chhipia and Rajesh @ Bhulla @
Rajesh Bhullu in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 824 of 2017 and
840 of 2017 respectively, are on bail. Their liabilities
under the bail bonds are cancelled.
33. It is informed by the learned Advocate
that the appellant/Ajit Singh @ Shutarwa @ Ajeet
Kumar in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 822 of 2017 is in jail.
34. He is directed to be released forthwith
from jail, if not detained or wanted in any other case.
35. Let a copy of this judgment be
dispatched to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail
forthwith for compliance and record.
36. The records of this case be returned to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.822 of 2017 dt.03-01-2024
the Trial Court forthwith.
37. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also
stand disposed off accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Nani Tagia, J)
Sauravkrsinha/
Sunil-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.01.2024
Transmission Date 04.01.2024
