Back
2012 Supreme(Jhk) 421
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
R. K. MERATHIA, D. N. UPADHYAY
Md. Yaqub Ansari @ Md. Ayub Ansari .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 77 of 2007
Decided On: 22nd of March, 2012
For the appellants:Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate Mr. A.S. Dayal & Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocates (in Cr. Appeal Nos.262, 273 & 320 of 1998) Mr. Ramawatar Sharma & Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, Advocates (in Cr. Appeal No.77 of 2007) Mr. P. Chatterjee, Advocate (in Cr. Appeal No.288 of 1998) Mr. P.C. Roy, Advocate (in Cr. Appeal No.299 of 1998) Mr. J.P. Pandey, Advocate (in Cr. Appeal No.303 of 1998)
For the State : M/s Nikki Sinha, A.P.P. (in all the appeals)
Headnote:A) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 120B:- Gist of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to break any law and this agreement may be express or implied or in part expressed or in part implied. (Para 18)
B) . Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 120B- Criminal conspiracy is very rarely an open agreement and hence very often proved by circumstantial evidence from the circumstances and the conduct of the parties to the agreement, proving beyond reasonable doubt each of the circumstances and all the circumstances forming a chain point to the guilt of the accused. (Paras 18 to 20)
C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 10 r/w Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860:- Once it is established that more than one persons shared a common intention to commit a crime, everything said and done by any one or more of each such group can be attributed to every member of such a group both in respect of the existence of conspiracy as well as the acts in pursuance of the acts subject only to the two conditions that they are in fact said or done by the members and the period after the formation of the common intention. (Para 22)
D.N. Upadhyay, J. Criminal appeal No.77 of 2007 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.11.2006 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 405 of 1998, arising out of Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No. 175 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2657 of 1996 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act, however, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
AND
Criminal appeal Nos.288, 299, 262, 273, 303 & 320 of 1998 have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.8.1998 & 31.8.1998 respectively passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 1997, arising out of Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No. 175 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2657 of 1996 whereby all the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life whereas appellant Mantu Das and Paiki Ramm @ Poki Ramm have further been held guilty under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years, one of the convict Mustak Khan, who has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years, has not preferred any appeal before this Court.
2. Since all the appeals referred to above arise out of a common F.I.R. i.e. Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No.175 of 1996, lodged on 06.09.1996 at 20.30 hours by the informant Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha, this common judgment shall be applicable. We are aware of the fact and the law that evidence adduced in two separate sessions trial followed by two separate judgments shall require to be discussed and appreciated according to the evidence available against appellants in their respective sessions trial and that principle will be followed in this judgment. The common witnesses in the aforesaid two sessions trial are Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (informant), Mithilesh Kumar, Arvind Kumar, Ghanshyam Pandey, Parmeshwar Mahto and Dr. D.K. Dhiraj out of whom the informant Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha, Mithilesh Kumar, Arvind Kumar and Dr. D.K. Dhiraj are material witnesses. The Investigating Officer Jagdish Prasad was not examined in S.T. No.405 of 1998 in which Md. Yaqub Ansari @ Md. Ayub Ansari is appellant.
3. Since the material witnesses are common in both the Sessions trial, we would like to bring on record the gist of the prosecution case adduced by them. According to fardbeyan Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (informant) along with his brother Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) was going to Rajganj from Kumar Medical Hall, situated within combined building, Dhanbad on his motorcycle bearing registration No. BR 17C 4288 on 06.09.1996. At about 8 p.m. when they reached near Sant Nirankari Chowk, they saw a scooter and a motorcycle Kawasaki parked at the side of the road and the persons standing near the place signaled them to stop. The informant accordingly followed the instructions and after being stopped at the place, identified the appellants namely Md. Yaqub Ansari, Dhiren Mahto, Gulam Sarbar, Mantu Das, Asgar Mian and Paiki Ramm in the vapor light affixed on the Nirankari Bhawan. The informant then inquired the reason for their stay at the place but till then appellants Yaqub Ansari, Dhiren Mahto took out pistol from their waist, pointed it towards them and asked, as to why they are disturbing their partner Binod in running the institute. They threatened them to remain away from the institute and failing to obey the instructions they will have to face the consequences. It is disclosed that Sant Kumar Sinha, (deceased) then got down from the m
