The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 613 of 2016 With Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 932 of 2016 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 01.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 05.04.2016 passed by learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghatshila in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 2015]. Golak Mahato, son of Late Kalipada Mahato, resident of village Pindrabad, Tola- Kumurmuri, P.O. Jorsha, P.S. Galudih, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.… … Appellant [Cr.A.(DB) No. 613 of 2016] Ganesh Mahto, son of Golak Mahto, resident of village Pindrabad, Tola- Kumurmuri, P.S. Galudih, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. …..Appellant [Cr.A.(DB) No. 932 of 2016] The State of Jharkhand ………Respondents (In both cases) -Versus- …… For the Appellants : M/s Abdul Wahab, Pradeep Kumar and Prafful Kumar, Advocates. For the State : M/s Sunil Kr. Dubey and Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.Ps. …… P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
From the evidence we find that whether the land belongs to these appellant or not, has not been proved. There is no document in support of the said fact rather there is only oral statement to the effect that the land belongs to the appellants. 10. Even if we accept that the land belongs to the appellants, then the next circumstance which the prosecution has to establish is Page/4 the identity of the person who was wearing a red colour T-shirt and caught the deceased. In this aspect, the only witness to testify is P.W.9 who is a child witness whom the the Court found competent to depose. We have gone through the evidence of P.W. 9. This witness has only stated that Koki (the deceased) was caught by a person wearing a red colour T-shirt when they were in the filed. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that he identified these appellants, who were in the Court to be the same person. He has not even stated that the persons who were present in Court had caught hold of the deceased. Thus, we find that P.W. 9 has not identified these two appellants, as the person who had caught the deceased. 11. Further from the evidence, we find that none of the witnesses have stated that they had seen these appellants kidnapping the deceased or/and the deceased was in the company of these appellants at any point of time. 12. Another circumstance, which the prosecution has put forth to convict the appellants is that a red colour T-shirt was found in the house of the Ganesh Mahato and P.W. 4 has stated that he had seen the appellant wearing the said red colour T-shirt. It is admitted fact that the T-Shirt was not put to TI Parade and none said that on that date, the appellants had worn the said T-shirt. Further, there is nothing in evidence to suggest that T-shirt is of the only one kind and there is no other T-shirt of similar make and is not available in market. Further the said T-shirt also was not produced in Court. 13. Another circumstance, which the prosecution has relied upon is the recovery of rope near the dead body and the part of the said rope was found in the house of these appellants. It is admitted that the said rope was not sent to FSL and was not produced before the Court also. 14. Thus, from the entire evidence, we find that no one has identified these appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. Further, there are no other circumstances to remotely suggest that these appellants have committed the murder of the deceased. 15. Considering what has been held above, we find merit in Page/5 these appeals. The judgment of conviction dated 01.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 05.04.2016 passed by learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghatshila in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 2015 is set aside. Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are allowed. 16. This Court directs the above named appellants to be released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case. 17. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. 18.
Arguments
SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. J U D G M E N T 10/Dated: 24.10.2024 By Court. These criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 01.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 05.04.2016 passed by learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghatshila in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellants having been found guilty of charge under Sections 302/201/34 of Indian Penal Code and have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and R.I. for five years under Section 201/34 IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/- each. Page/1 2. The learned counsels for the appellants submit that the appellant Golak Mahato (appellant of Cr.A. No. 613 of 2016) is the father of the appellant Ganesh Mahto (appellant of Cr.A. No. 932 of 2016). They argue that there is no legal evidence to convict these appellants. They have also not been identified by any of the witnesses either as assailants or as the person with whom the deceased was last seen. It is their contention that the only material available on the record is that a person wearing a red colour T-shirt had caught the deceased and committed murder of the deceased and one red colour T-shirt was found from the house of these appellants. They also submit that in the wildest dream, the said fact cannot be a ground to convict the appellants. It is further argued that since the deceased along with other children had cut sugarcane from the field of these appellants, they have been convicted accused in this case without any legal evidence. . 3. Counsel for the State submits that this case is based on circumstantial evidence. P.W.9 is a child witness who has stated that after playing they went to the field of the appellants. There they had cut sugarcane and were eating the same, when a person wearing a red colour T-shirt came and chased them; he fled but the deceased was caught by him, thereafter the deceased did not return and her dead body was recovered near a canal. He further submits that the deceased was strangulated as a rope was found near the dead body and part of the said rope was also found in the house of the appellants, which would suggests that these appellants had committed the murder of the deceased. He also submits that it is the case that a person wearing red colour T-shirt had caught the deceased and one red colour T-shirt was also recovered from the house of the appellants, but he fairly admits that the red colour T-shirt was never put on TI Parade nor the T-shirt and the rope were sent for Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) examination or produced in Court. 4. In this case, the FIR is at the instance of Lachu Sabar (P.W.8) who stated that his daughter and other children were playing in the field, thereafter they went to to field of these appellants where Page/2 they cut the sugarcane from the said field and they were eating the same when a person wearing a red T-shirt came and chased them and caught his daughter, aged about five years. The girl did not return. He had got this information by P.W.9. On the basis the said fardbeyan, Galudih P.S. Case No. 3/2015 for committing the offence under Section 364/34 IPC has been registered against the appellants. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and accordingly the cognizance was taken. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty, charge was framed under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and they were put on trial. 5. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution had examined altogether twelve witnesses, who are as follows:- P.W.1 P.W.2 P.W.3 P.W.4 P.W.5 P.W.6 P.W.7 P.W.8 P.W.9 P.W.10 P.W.11 P.W.12 Sukhlal Sabar, Lachu Sabar Ravi Sabar, Rutu Sabar, Gardhun Sabar, Arun Sabar, Dr. Lalan Choudhary, Lachu Sabar, Chhotu Sabar, Harishankar Gope @ Dhananjay Gope, Kuldeep Ram (I.O. of this case), and Rajendra Kumar Mahto. 6. Several documents were also exhibited in this case, which are as follows:- Ext.1 Signature of Sukhlal Sabar on the fardbayan of Lachhu Sabar, Fardbeyan, Postmortem report of Koki Sabar, Signature of Dhananjay Gope on the carbon copy of Ext.1/1 Ext.2 Ext.3 the inquest report. Ext.3/1 Ext.4 of occurrence. Ext.4/1 the house of Golak Mahto, Ext.4/2 Ext.5 Seizure list of red T-shirt, and Formal FIR. Carbon copy of the inquest report. Seizure list of Plastic rope seized from the place Seizure list of the plastic rope seized from Page/3 7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C to which, they denied all the allegations and circumstances. After considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, the Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. 8. The doctor is P.W.7. Who found the following ante-mortem injuries over the body of the deceased:- (i) Abrasion 4 cm x 5 cm under chin. (ii) Bruise: 18 cm x 7 cm all over right half of abdomen. On dissection front and side of neck muscles and vessels contused. Ventral aspect of cervical vertebra contused. Both shoulder front contused. Both side of larynx (vocal cord) contused, larynx and trachea grossly contused. Brain soft and congested. Organs congested. Stomach contains undigested food rice and pulse 200 grms. Urinary bladder empty. Uterus small. The doctor opined that the cause of death of the deceased was pressure of neck (throttling) and all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. From the evidence of the doctor, we find and hold that the deceased died a homicidal death. 9. Now the issue, which falls for our consideration is what are the materials to implicated these two appellants in this case. Admittedly there are no eye witnesses of the occurrence. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance against the appellants is that it is alleged that the deceased along with other children had went to the field of these appellants and after cutting sugarcane were eating the same, when they were chased and the deceased was caught by a person wearing red colour T-shirt.
Decision
Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) (GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated: the 24th October, 2024. NAFR/Anu-Cp.-3. Page/6