The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2002 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction dated 06.04.2002 and order of sentence dated 10.04.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 145 of 1999 arising out of G.R. Case No.2193 of 1998 by the Court of Learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad) ------- 1. 2. 3. Pradip Pal, son of late Bhuder Chandra Pal, Bhagi Pal D/o Late Bhuder Chander Pal, Iti @ Itu Pal wife of Sri Mukhtar Singh, All residents of Lal Bangla, Matigarha, Sector-V, PO Nadhkarkee, PS Baghmara, Dist-Dhanbad. --- --- Appellants The State of Jharkhand Versus ------- --- --- Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, APP Dated 22nd August, 2024 ------- J U D G M E N T All the aforesaid appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.04.2002 and order of sentence dated 10.04.2002, whereby and whereunder, the learned trial Court, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.145 of 1999, arising out of G.R. Case No.2193 of 1998 has convicted the appellants for the offence under section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201 of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default six months simple imprisonment was awarded. Prosecution Story: 2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of the
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Purnima Dey (P.W.-4), whose statement was recorded by the S.I.- G.R. P.S. Bhojudih on 25.06.1998 at 7:30 Hours near Railway Track K.M. No.342/BG-6/ of South Eastern Railway which is as under: (a) The informant (PW-4) stated that her daughter Lakhhi Pal was married with Kishore Kumar Pal in the last year in the month of Asharh. Further that her son-in-law Kishore Kumar Pal was working in Nadkharki colliery. After some time of the said marriage his son-in-law started demanding further dowry, but the same could not be given out of poverty of the informant. As a result of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the accused persons were prone to disturb the peace of Lakhhi Pal as she was continuously being beaten by them. The informant has named five persons in the Fardbayan who had been allegedly participating in aforesaid physical and mental torture namely the husband Kishore Kumar Pal, Dewar Pradeep Pal, Sisters Siwani Pal, Bhagi Pal and Iti Pal. Persons from the locality tried to pacify them, but no fruitful result came out. (b) Further that in the evening of 24.6.98 some news had spread over relating to dead body of Lakhhi Pal near Benidih Railway Line, but as it was darkness, so the informant avoided to come to the place of occurrence in the night. On the subsequent morning on 25.6.98 the informant along with her husband Bharat Dey went to the place of occurrence, the said Railway Track near Benidih and found her daughter’s dead body behind the Railway Track. Lakhhi Pal’s left hand was found separate from the body. She had also sustained serious injuries in her head. Thereafter, the informant went to the in-laws house of Lakhhi Pal. She got information that the husband Kishore Kumar Pal, his younger brother Pradeep Pal, younger Sister Siwani Pal and Bhagi along with mother-in-law Iti Pal had assaulted the deceased Lakhhi Pal for about three days just preceding the date of occurrence. She was also not offered any food for the aforesaid three days. The deceased was also very much pressurized for bringing dowry from her parent’s house, but when she could not oblige the accused persons, she was mercilessly beaten to death and later on her dead body was put up on the Railway Track near Benidih to show that she had faced an accident on the Railway Track with a view to conceal themselves from the liability of murder of Lakhhi Pal for non-fulfillment of payment of dowry by her parent. (c) On the basis of aforesaid Fardbayan recorded by B.B. Singh, O/C G.R. P.S. Bhojudih, a formal F.I.R. was drawn in Bhojudih Police Station against five named accused persons namely husband Kishore Kumar Pal, Dewar Pradeep Pal, Sisters Siwani Pal, Bhagi Pal 2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2002 and Iti Pal. This case refers to Bhojudih G.R. P.S. Case 6/98 dated 25.6.98, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC. After investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted against all the five accused persons under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 201/34 I.P.C. Accordingly cognizance of the offences was taken and the case record was commitment to the Sessions Court for disposal. 3. The learned trial Court had framed the charge on 07.09.1999 against the 4 accused persons alongwith aforesaid three appellants namely, Pradip Pal, Bhagi Pal and Iti @ Itu Pal and one Kishor Kumar Pal, who was the husband of the deceased for the offence punishable under Section 302/34, 304-B & 201 of the IPC. 4. The learned Trial Court and after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against all the 4 accused persons including these three appellants namely, Pradip Pal, Bhagi Pal and Iti @ Itu Pal, but these 3 appellants have convicted only under section 201 of IPC, whereas one Kishor Kumar Paul, (husband of the deceased) was convicted under Section 304-B along with Section 201 of the IPC by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Heard the learned defence counsel Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned APP Mr. Azeemuddin, appearing on behalf of the State. 6. It is submitted by learned defence Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellants that the co-convict Kishor Kumar Pal (husband of the deceased) had preferred an appeal vide Criminal Appeal (DB) No.300 of
Decision
2002 which was disposed of as infructuous in view of the fact that the said co-convict Kishor Kumar Pal was released from the bail after serving the entire sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court by the order of the State Government dated 4th August, 2012 by giving remission after completion of actual imprisonment of 14 years as evident from the order dated 07.01.2013 of this Court. 7. Further it has been pointed out that since after full-fledged trial, the appellants have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC for want of evidence by the learned Trial Court and therefore, the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the very crux of 3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2002 the charges that when the appellants are not found guilty for causing any kind of torture or cruelty and committing murder of the deceased then in absence of iota of evidence the finding of the learned trial Court with respect to the guilt of the appellants under Section 201 of the IPC is bad in law and fit to be set aside and in support of his pleadings, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has relied upon the rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court as enunciated in Sukhram Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 502. 8. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the dead body of the deceased was found at the site of the Railway Track and the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidences and came to the conclusion that these appellants were also involved in the offence for disappearing the evidence by committing murder of the deceased. Further, the learned APP has pointed out the depositions of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-8 & PW-9 in order to show that these appellants were involved in the commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against these appellants and hence this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. 9. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case. 10. It is found that in this case altogether nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecutions which are as under: - I. PW-1 Bokeshwar Kumar Dey, brother of the deceased- Lakhhi Pal, II. PW-2 Bharat Dey, father of the deceased-Lakhhi Pal, III. PW-3 Swaraswati, sister of the deceased, IV. PW-4 Purnima Devi, informant, mother of the the deceased, V. PW-5, Doctor Shailendra Kumar, VI. PW-6 Ramashray Singh, a Tanden in the colliery, VII. PW-7 Pradeep Hari, VIII. PW-8 Santosh Hari and IX. PW-9 Braj Bihari Singh, I.O. of this case. 4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2002 Apart from this some documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of prosecution. These are- I. Ext.-1 Signature of Purnima Devi on fardbeyan II. Ext.-2 postmortem report; III. Ext.-3 Fardbeyan; IV. Ext.-4 F.I.R. and V. Ext.-5 Inquest Report 11. Out of nine witnesses, PW-1 Bokeshwar Kumar Dey is the brother of the deceased, PW-2 Bharat Dey, is the father of the deceased, PW-3 Swaraswati, is the sister of the deceased and PW-4 Purnima Devi, is the mother of the deceased and all have deposed only with respect to the fact of causing torture and cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and further causing murder of the deceased. None of the witnesses either the mother (PW-4) or the sister (PW-3) or the brother (PW-1) or the PW- 2 Bharat Dey, father of the deceased have stated about the involvement of these appellants in carrying the dead body of the deceased to the railway track after committing murder in order to fasten the guilt of appellants under Section 201 of IPC. 12. It is admitted case of the prosecution that there is no eye-witness in this case. And from the testimonies of witnesses it is found that circumstance has been narrated by any one of the witnesses by which it is found that these appellants were involved in the commission of the offence for disappearing by putting the dead body of the deceased by the side of the railway track for disappearing the evidence with an intention of screening offender from the legal punishment within the meaning of Section 201 of the IPC. 13. PW-5, is the Dr. Shailendra Kumar, who conducted the post- mortem of the dead body of the deceased and PW-7 & PW-8 were the sweepers who had lifted the dead body of the deceased from the railway track and handed over to the father of the deceased for the post mortem. PW-6 has been declared hostile and the depositions of neither of the witnesses, PW-5 or PW-7 or PW-8 is significant for any kind of evidence by which the prosecution gets any support in order to fasten the guilt of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC. 5 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2002 PW-6 Ramashray Singh, an employee of the BCCL has been declared hostile but he is an independent witness and, in the cross-examination, conducted on behalf of the appellant, he did not utter a single word about any one of the appellants with respect to the involvement of any one of them in any manner in the commission of the offence. 14. PW-9 is the I.O. of this case and he did not utter a single word with respect to the actual place of murder and nor any involvement of these appellants with respect to disappear the dead body of the deceased by putting the dead body of the deceased near the railway track to give the colour of death by Train accident. 15. From the appraisal of the aforesaid testimonies of the witnesses, it is found that the learned trial Court has come to the finding only on whim without any iota of evidence against any one of the appellants for destroying the evidence of the offence of murder by placing the dead body near the railway track and the learned trial Court even in the absence of any evidence, only on the baselessly presumption and suspicion has come to a finding that since the appellants namely, Pradip Pal, Bhagi Pal and Iti @ Itu Pal had been living in the same house as the family members where the deceased-Lakhhi Pal was living and therefore their involvement for causing disappearance of evidence of murder by throwing the dead body upon the railway line cannot be ruled out and such finding in absence of any evidence to that effect when the trial Court has acquitted these appellants for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC, is not tenable in the eyes of law because the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Ridiculously, the learned trail Court has further come to a finding that since one person cannot be able to lift the dead body and to take up so many kilometers for throwing the same in the railway line between Bhojudih and Khanudih and therefore these appellants were also held to have been involved in the offence without coming to a finding that as to where the death has taken place and from where these appellants have taken the dead body for disappearing the evidence. 16. In order to fasten the guilt of a person under Section 201 of the IPC, it is necessary to see the provisions of Section 201 of the IPC which reads as under: - 6 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2002 “201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. _ Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence - shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.” 17. The learned Amicus Curiae rightly relied upon the rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhram Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 502 where under the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “18. The first paragraph of the Section contains the postulates for constituting the offence while the remaining three paragraphs prescribe three different tiers of punishments depending upon the degree of offence in each situation. To bring home an offence under Section 201 of IPC, the ingredients to be established are: (i) committal of an offence; (ii) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed; (iii) person charged with the said offence should have caused disappearance of evidence and (iv) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he should have given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false. It is plain that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused. It hardly needs any emphasis that in order to bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, a mere suspicion is not sufficient. There must be on record cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown. In Palvinder Kaur Vs. The State of Punjab AIR1952 SC 354, this 19 Court had said that in order to establish the charge under Section 201 IPC, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed; that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed; with requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, caused the evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting such offence knowing or having 7 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2002 reason to believe the same to be false. It was observed that the Court should safeguard itself against the danger of basing its conclusion on suspicions, however, strong they may be. (Also See Suleman Rehiman Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 829, Nathu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (1979)3 SCC 574, V.L. Tresa Vs. State of Kerala (2001)3 SCC 549).” 18. In the present case, admittedly, there is no eye-witness and the prosecution did not disclose any circumstance against the appellants to fasten their guilt under Section 201 of the IPC. In the present case, the appellants have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC and such there is no trace of evidence with respect of causing torture and cruelty for want of demand of dowry nor the involvement of this appellants in causing the murder of the deceased within the meaning of Section 304-B of the IPC and therefore they have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court but even after finding this fact the learned Trial Court on mere baseless suspicion that since they were family members of co-convict namely Kishore Kumar Pal (husband of the deceased) they have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC under which they are alleged to have taken away the dead body for disappearing the evidence and threw at the side of the railway track. The learned Trial Court has also come to the finding from Para-30, 31 and 32 and since they were family members and therefore their involvement in the commission of the offence cannot be ruled out in absence of any cogent evidence. This finding is wholly erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law in the lack of any evidence. Neither the PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 & PW-4 have stated about involvement of these appellants in disappearing the evidence i.e. the dead body of the deceased throwing the same in the railway track along with co-convict (husband). Therefore, this Court after going through the entire evidences comes to a concrete conclusion that the finding of the trial Court is bad in law and fit to be set aside inasmuch as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 19. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.04.2002 and order of sentence dated 10.04.2002 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 145 of 1999 against these appellants namely - Pradip Pal, Bhagi Pal and Iti @ Itu Pal passed 8 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2002 under Section 201 of the IPC are hereby set aside. 20. These appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Since all these appellants are on bail, they are discharged from their liability of bail bonds. 21. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 22. Learned counsel, Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, appearing on behalf of the appellants as Amicus Curiae to assist to this Court is entitled for the remuneration of Rs.5500/- per appearance from the High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi as per the maximum limit prescribed by Rules and Regulations. 23. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi to do the needful for payment of his remuneration to the Amicus Curiae Shri Prem Pujari Roy. 24. Let the Trial Court Records and the copy of the judgment be also transmitted to the concerned learned trial Court. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court S.Das 9 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2002