Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 305
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAKESH KUMAR, ARVIND SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Bhajan Kewat S/o Gurudeo Kewat – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 868 of 2014
Decided On : 19-03-2018
For the Appellants : Shri Vikramdeo Singh, Shri Sada Nand Roy.
For the Respondents: Shri Ajay Mishra, Shri Rajni Kant Pandey.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of evidence related to the last seen of the deceased with the accused and the recovery of the dead body based on the accused's disclosure.
Headnote:
Conviction - Offence under Section 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - [IPC Sections 302/34, 201]
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the commission of offenses under Section 302/34, 201 of the IPC. The case involved the kidnapping and subsequent murder of the deceased for ransom. The prosecution presented evidence of last seen of the deceased with the appellants and the recovery of the dead body based on the appellants' disclosure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established the last seen of the deceased with the appellants and the recovery of the dead body based on the appellants' disclosure. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence for all the appellants.
Issues: The issues involved the establishment of the last seen of the deceased with the appellants, the recovery of the dead body, and the relevance of the confessional statements made before the Police.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of last seen provided by multiple witnesses, including the mother and father of the deceased, and the recovery of the dead body based on the appellants' disclosure. The court considered the confessional statements made before the Police as irrelevant due to the prior recovery of the dead body.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence for all the four appellants was upheld.
RAKESH KUMAR, J.
1. All the four appellants were convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 231 of 2011 by Shri Arun Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua (hereinafter referred to as the “trial judge”). All the four appellants by judgment dated 20.09.2014 were convicted for commission of offence under Section 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and by order dated 22.09.2014 under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and imposed fine of Rs. 15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Short fact of the prosecution case is that on 13.01.2011 a complaint case vide Complaint Case No. 40 of 2011 was presented in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua. In the complaint petition the complainant-Vinod Kumar Kewat (PW-4) had arrayed all the appellants as accused and disclosed that on 27.12.2010 at about 5.00 P.M. the appellants had committed the offence under Section 302, 364, 364(A) of the I.P.C. The place of occurrence was shown as the village of the informant i.e. village: Chipali, Police Station: Durgawati, District-Kaimur. In the complaint petition informant disclosed that he along with his son-Arvind Kumar Kewat (deceased) had gone to participate in the Shradh Karm of the father of a co-villager Raja Ram where accused persons had also come. The complainant thereafter had returned back but his son had not returned back till late night whereupon the informant made search. Subsequently, on 09.01.2011 one letter was dropped near the door of the complainant in which it was mentioned that if by 13.01.2011 Rs. 1,00000/- is not paid, his son would be killed. He disclosed that when his son had gone to take meal in the Shradh Karm all the four aforesaid accused persons had also gone. Out of them, Gurudeo Kewat (appellant no. 4) had gone somewhere. From other three accused on 10.01.2011 the complainant enquired about his son but no proper reply was given and they too fled away. The informant was fully sure that from the house of Raja Ram his son was kidnapped by the aforesaid four accused persons for ransom and they were demanding Rs. 1,00000/-. Regarding the occurrence the complainant had given information to Police but Police did not lodge any case and thereafter he had come to court for filing the case. The said complaint was sent to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) for registration , and thereafter, on 06.02.2011 a formal F.I.R. vide Durgawati P.S. Case No. 07 of 2011 was drawn for offence under Sections 364/34 of the I.P.C. against all the aforesaid four appellants. However, subsequently after noticing the death of victim, on 29.03.2011 Section 302/201 of the I.P.C. was added in the F.I.R. It is pertinent to mention here that after lodging F.I.R. on the next date i.e. on 07.02.2011 dead body was recovered. The case was investigated and during investigation accusation was found true and thereafter, on 31.03.2011 charge- sheet was submitted against all the four appellants for commission of offence under Sections 364/ 302/201/34 of the I.P.C. and thereafter, on 7.5.2011 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offences. After completion of procedure under Section 207 of the I.P.C. the case was committed to the court of Sessions on 13.07.2011 and thereafter, it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 231 of 2011. In the case on 09.08.2011 joint charge was framed against all the aforesaid four appellants for offence under Sections 302/34, 364 and 201 of the I.P.C.
3. During trial to establish the case from prosecution side altogether six witnesses were examined. Out of six witnes
