The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.03 of 2003 ------ (Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2002 and order of sentence dated 27.11.2002 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case Nos.5 of 2002 and 111 of 2002) ------ 1. Praful Chandra Bhogta, son of late Shadeo Bhogta. 2. Bhasker Chandra Bhogta. 3. Dilip Bhogta. Both sons of Praful Chandra Bhogta. 4. Bapan Bhogta @ Abhijit Bhogta, son of Bhasker Bhogta. 5. Sushil Bhogta, son of Prabhu Bhogta. All residents of Village Muram, P.S. Nala (Bindapathar), District Jamtara. … … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … … Respondent ------ PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. : SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. ------ For the Appellants Advocate : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. Ms. Seema Kashyap,(Amicus Curiae) ------ J U D G M E N T By Court, : 11th November, 2024 This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the
Legal Reasoning
appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2002 and order of sentence dated 27.11.2002 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case Nos.5 of 2002 and 111 of 2002, whereby and wherein the appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 and Section 201/34 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 302 /34 IPC, and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 03 years with fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 201/34 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2.
Legal Reasoning
We have heard the learned counsel representing the 1 appellants, the amicus curiae and learned Spl. P.P. representing the State at length and have gone through the materials available on record. 3. At the outset, learned counsel representing the appellants apprised the Court of the fact that appellant No.1 - Praful Chandra Bhogta, has expired during pendency of this Criminal Appeal. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal qua appellant No.1 - Praful Chandra Bhogta, stands abated. 4. So far as other appellant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, learned counsel representing them submits that they have nothing to do with the aforesaid offences and they got entangled in this case with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to the enmity between Praful Chandra Bhogta and the deceased. He submits that there is no eye-witness to the said occurrence. He further submits that these appellants have been convicted by the Trial Court without taking into consideration the fact that there was no evidence to show that these appellants were responsible for the murder of the deceased. He submits that the investigation was not done in a proper manner as the Investigating Officer could not recover the bicycle, watch and ring of the deceased. 5. Per contra, learned Spl. A.P.P. representing the State submits that the appellants have been rightly convicted in this case. He submits that the appellants have thrown garbage at the doorstep of the deceased knowing fully well that his daughter-in-law is washing dishes there and this can cause inconvenience to them. He submits that disputes commonly used to arose between the appellants and the family of the informant and the appellants have ended this fight by killing the father of the informant. 6. The facts of the case as delineated on the basis of fardbeyan of informant – Dhruv Jyoti Bhogta, are that the father of the informant was a Teacher in the Middle School, who retired since about three years back. On 01.08.2001 at about 07:00 A.M., informant’s sister-in-law namely Rozi Singh was 2 washing dishes at the backdoor of the house when Praful Chandra Bhogta came and threw garbage in front of the doorstep. On seeing this, his sister-in-law went back to the house and told about the act of Praful Chandra Bhogta to his father upon which he came out of the house and his mother and sister-in-law also came out following his father. His father chided Praful for throwing the garbage near the doorstep when his daughter-in-law was washing dish, even though he also uses that path for ingress and egress, but Praful started roaring and abusing him. Meanwhile, Bhasker Chandra Bhogta, Dilip Bhogta, Bapan Bhogta @ Abhijit Bhogta and Sushil Bhogta, also arrived there and started abusing his father, mother and sister-in-law. On hearing the scream, he also went out from home and saw that the aforementioned persons were abusing and threatening to kill them. Suddenly Praful Chandra Bhogta, who is the brother of his father, came armed with axe (kulhari) and ran towards his father and attacked him but somehow his father saved himself. The informant could managed to take his family members to the house. When he told them also to leave, they left threatening. There were also altercations between them owing to dispute regarding ingress and egress, for which a complaint was also lodged and the accused were sent to jail. After the said incident, when his father went to Jamtara for drawing pension and bringing ration for the family, he did not return by evening. On the next day i.e. on 02.08.2001, when the informant went to find out his father, a girl near Guhia Jori Basti told that a dead body is lying near canal. He went there and discovered the dead body of his father, having several injuries. The bicycle of his father was missing. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Nala P.S. Case No.72/01 was registered under Section 302/34 I.P.C. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302/201/34 IPC against the appellants, showing Sushil Chandra Bhogta as absconder. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges were framed under Section 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. 3 8. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined total nine witnesses, who are:- i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. 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 :- Hemlal Besra Sukhal Besra :- :- Rajmuni Singh :- Mangal Besra :- :- Durga Devi :- Dhruv Jyoti Bhogta :- Dr. Shrinath Mishra Yugal Kishore Gupta :- Ashok Kumar Bhogta 9. P.W.-1 namely Hemlal Besra, P.W.-2 namely Sukhal Besra and P.W.-4 namely Mangal Besra, have been declared hostile. P.W.-3 namely Rajmuni Singh is the wife of the informant. She deposed that her gotani was washing dishes when Praful Chandra Bhogta (now dead), came there and threw garbage in front of the doorstep. On seeing this, her gotani went back to the house and told about the act of Praful Chandra Bhogta to her father-in-law upon which he came out of the house and chided Praful for throwing the garbage near the doorstep when his daughter-in-law was washing dish, but Praful started roaring and abusing him. Suddenly Praful Bhogra, who is the brother of his father, came armed with axe (kulhari) attacked her father-in-law but they somehow caught the axe. The appellants left saying that it is their land and threatened them. P.W.-5 namely Ashok Kumar Bhogta is the son of the deceased. He deposed that his wife was washing dishes at the backdoor of the house where Praful Bhogta came and threw garbage. Upon objection by his father, Praful stated abusing and fighting. Meanwhile, Bhaskar, Dilip, Baban, Sushil also came there and Praful assaulted his father by axe but somehow his father was saved. Praful had threatened to kill him. On the same day at 10:00 A.M., when his father went to Jamtara by bicycle to draw pension, he did not return. On enquiry, someone told his brother that a dead body is lying near the canal. When they went there, they found that it was the dead body of his father having several cut injuries on his leg and 4 hand. There was also injury on his head. P.W.-6 namely Durga Devi is the wife of the deceased. Her statement is same and similar to the statements of P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 whether it is with respect to starting of fight by throwing garbage near the doorstep of the house of the informant when her daughter-in-law was washing dishes or the quarrel which took place between them or the fact of death of her husband. 10. P.W.-7 namely Dhruv Jyoti Bhogta deposed that on 01.08.2001 in morning, his sister-in-law namely Rosi Singh was washing the dishes at the backdoor of the house when Praful Chandra Bhogta came and threw garbage in front of her sister-in-law. His sister-in-law told about this act of Praful Chandra Bhogta to his father and upon asking Praful that why he was throwing the garbage near the doorstep when his daughter-in-law was washing dish, Praful started roaring and abusing him. Meanwhile, Bhasker Chandra Bhogta, Dilip Bhogta, Bapan Bhogta @ Abhijit Bhogta and Sushil Bhogta, also arrived there and started abusing his father, mother and sister-in-law. On hearing the scream, he also went out from home and saw that the aforementioned persons were abusing and threatening to kill them. Suddenly Praful Bhogra, who is the brother of his father, came armed with axe (kulhari) and ran towards his father and attacked him but somehow his father saved himself. The informant could manage to take his family members to the house. After the said incident, when his father went to Jamtara for drawing pension and for bringing ration for the family, he did not return by evening. On the next day i.e. on 02.08.2001, when the informant went to find out his father, a girl near Guhia Jori Basti told that a dead body is lying near canal. He went there and found the dead body of his father having several injuries. The bicycle of his father was missing. P.W.-8 namely Dr. Shrinath Mishra is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased – Puan Chandra Bhogta. He found 12 ante-mortem injuries, which are as follows:- 5 i. Multiple small abrasions over right external ear. ii. iii. Incised wound over the mid of the head 1 ½” x 1”. Incised wound over the head transversed plane-3” x 1/2” bone deep. iv. Multiple fracture of the right wrist, joint, radius v. and Ulna. Linear sharp cut wound over the back of the forearm. 4” x 1/2" bone deep. vi. Sharp cut wound over the right shoulder extending upto elbow on the medial side and lateral side of the chest. Skin, Muscles, Blood vessels and nerves were absent in this area. Right humerus was visible on the medial side. vii. Multiple fracture of left hand in carpal and metacarpal bones. x. ix. viii. 2 incised wounds over the left upper arm on lateral side 2” x 1/2" x 1” deep and 1/2” x 1/2" x 1”. Incised wound over left lower arm 1 1/2” x 1/2 x 1”. Fracture of the left ankle joint and tibia protruding outside from the joint. Incised wound on the lateral side of the left ankle 4” x 3” bone deep. Incised wound over the mid of the left leg 4” x 1” x bone deep. xii. xi. Internal examination: On opening the skull, scalp was pale, blood clots were found beneath the scalp over the point of injury. Blood was oozing from the intero parietal and fronto parietal point. On opening of brain, blood and blood clots were found over the cerebral cortex below the point of injury. On opening of thorax, lungs were pale, perecardiam was pale, heart chamber were empty. Abdomen:- Stomach was empty, small and large intestine were pale, liver pale, spleen pale, both kidney pale, urinary bladder was empty. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to antemortem injuries caused by some sharp cutting substance mainly the cause of death is caused due to cerebral haemorrhage caused by antemortem injuries on head. The post-mortem report was marked as Ext.2. 11. P.W.-9 namely Yugal Kishore Gupta is the Investigating Officer. He proved the fardbeyan of the informant – Dhruv Jyoti Bhogta. On the basis of the F.I.R., he prepared the inquest 6 report at the place of occurrence. He visited the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Puran Chandra Bhogta lying there with several injuries on his body. He did not find any blood stains on the earth. 12. 13. Several documentary evidences were also exhibited. From a holistic perusal of the fardbeyan as well as the impugned judgment we did not find any material to negate the argument of learned counsel representing the appellant that there is no eye-witness to the incident as none of the witnesses have stated that they have seen the occurrence. 14. The presence of the appellants at the place of death of father of the informant has also not been substantiated by the prosecution. They have been convicted merely on the basis of circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence. Though the prosecution has proved the first part of the occurrence, where the dispute arose between both the parties but the second and the most important part as to whether the appellants can be held liable for murder of the deceased, has not been substantiated by the prosecution. There is not a single witness from whose statement, the involvement of the appellants in commission of murder can be proved. Neither any prosecution witness had seen the offence nor any witness of the vicinity where the dead body was found came forward to depose against the appellants. The prosecution witnesses are all interested witnesses who can only prove the motive behind the occurrence but neither of them had seen the occurrence and only on the basis of conjectures and surmises they have implicated these appellants. There are no other circumstances except the occurrence of the morning hours to implicate the appellants. That circumstance is too weak a circumstance to convict them. Further, on basis of that one altercation which took place in the morning, the appellants cannot be held guilty of murder. 15. Thus, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. Thus, we are inclined to acquit appellant No.2 - Bhasker 7 Chandra Bhogta, appellant No.3 - Dilip Bhogta, appellant No.4 - Bapan Bhogta @ Abhijit Bhogta and appellant No.5 - Sushil Bhogta. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2002 and order of sentence dated 27.11.2002 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case Nos.5 of 2002 and 111 of 2002, are hereby set aside. As the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds, so are the bailers. 16. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court concerned. 18. 19.
Decision
Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of. We have requested learned counsel Ms. Seema Kashyap, and appointed her as learned Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. Considering her assistance, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay remuneration of Rs.7,500/- to Ms. Seema Kashyap (Amicus Curiae). (ANANDA SEN, J.) (GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Dated:- 11/11/2024 NAFR / Prashant 8