The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the last seen theory and the accused's failure to explain the circumstances of the death.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)

Heard Mr. Binay Kumar, learned advocate for the appellant, Ms. Usha Kumari No. 1, learned Special PP for the State and Mr. Irshad, learned Amicus Curiae.

2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order dated 17.05.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST Act, East Champaran, Motihari (in short ‘trial court’) by which the sole appellant in this case has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/. In case of default in payment of fine, he has been ordered to further undergo imprisonment for six months.

Prosecution Story

3. The prosecution story is based on the written report dated 12.05.2014 written by one Naresh Raut (P.W.-4). The informant alleged that on 12.05.2014 at about 12:00 noon, the named accused persons (1) Ajay Kumar Sah and (2) Vikas Kumar both resident of village Hasanpura, P.S. Sugauli, Dist- East Champaran came to the house of the informant and took away his younger brother Dinesh Raut to Sikrahana river on the pretext of taking bath. It has been alleged that both the accused persons killed Dinesh Raut by causing drowning in the river and thereafter they fled away.

4. On the basis of the written report Sugauli P.S. Case No. 130 of 2014 dated 12.05.2014 was registered under section 302, 34 IPC. After investigation of the case, the investigating officer (I.O.) submitted a chargesheet under sections 302, 34 IPC and under section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’) against Vikash Kumar and Ajay Kumar. On 01.12.2014, cognizance was taken. It is worth mentioning at this stage that the records of the another co-accused Ajay Kumar was separated and sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Motihari vide order 30.10.2015. On finding that the case is Sessions triable, the records were committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari. The records were later transferred to the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act.

5. From the records, it further appears that on 30.11.2015, charges under section 302 IPC and under sections 3(i)(v) of the SC/ST Act were read over and explained to the present appellant in Hindi which he denied and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as 11 prosecution witnesses were examined and documentary evidences were marked as Exhibits. The list of witnesses and the exhibited documents are as under : -

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. He pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant

8. Mr. Binay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case there is no witness to the occurrence, the whole prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence but the circumstances completing the criminological chain have not been established beyond all reasonable doubt