Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 2056
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ.
Indrajit Sinha @ Vicky son of Anup Kr. Sinha - Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 295 of 2010
With
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 166 of 2010
Decided On : 22-10-2019
For the Appellants :Mr. Manindra Kr. Sinha, Amicus; Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha-II, Mr. Tejo Mistri, Mr. Nagendra Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, APP
For the Informant :Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 394, 411 and 302/34 - Evidence Act - Section 27 and 114 - Circumstantial evidence - Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery - Murder - Appeal against conviction - Information given to him by the son of a neighbour who stayed in Quarter - In his fardbeyan, informant has stated that in morning he had left for his duty at TELCON where he was working as a Fitter. His son had also left for his school at 7:45 a.m. and when his son came back home he found door of his house open and his mother lying on her bed in other room. He call neighbours to see his mother. In meantime, he was informed by son of a neighbour about incident and on receiving information when the informant came home he found his wife murdered. He has also noticed that jewelleries and cash were taken away from his almirah - Held, Court find that there is a glaring missing link in prosecution’s case. Prosecution has failed to establish that looted articles which were put on TIP but not produced in court were not tampered. It has also failed to prove genuineness of seizure-memo prepared pursuant to the recovery affected from possession of appellants at their instance. The investigating officer has admitted that he did not take finger print and in his cross-examination he says that he did not put seal on articles seized at place of occurrence and he did not put mark of identification on them. In paragraph no.10 of his cross-examination, he says that he has not recorded in the diary that he had sealed the articles seized - True, seizure-memo of recovered articles have been proved by P.W 12 and P.W 14, but then, the aforesaid circumstances and the testimony of Petitioner witnesses make their evidence suspicious - Criminal Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
The convicts, namely, Indrajit Sinha @ Vicky, Rajesh Kashmi @ Rajesh Reshmi and Rabish @ Shahzada Khan have challenged the judgment of conviction under sections 394, 411 and 302/34 IPC and the sentence inflicted upon them in S.T. Case No. 154/07 by the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East).
2. In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 295 of 2010, Indrajit Sinha @ Vicky and Rajesh Kashmi @ Rajesh Reshmi are the appellants and in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 166 of 2010, Rabish @ Shahzada Khan is the appellant.
3. The appellants have been sentenced to RI for life under section 302/34 IPC, RI for Ten years under section 394 IPC and RI for Two years under section 411 IPC.
4. On 21.11.2006, at about 13:30 hrs., a written report was submitted by Kishore Sinha, on the basis of which Telco P.S. Case No. 275/06 was registered under section 394/302 IPC against unknown. During the course of investigation, Aman Verma and Vikash Kumar @ Bittu, the tenants under the informant, disclosed that on the previous night the above-named accused persons had approached them and asked for bed and blanket for sleeping on the attic of the house. On the basis of the information provided by them raids were conducted, the accused persons were arrested, confessional statement of Indrajit Sinha and Rajesh Kashmi @ Rajesh Reshmi were recorded and cash and other looted articles were recovered from their possession and from the places indicated by them. They were put on trial to face the charge under sections 394, 411 and 302/34 IPC.
5. During the trial, the prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses; the informant is P.W. 8 and the tenants, namely, Aman Verma and Vikash Kumar were examined as P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 respectively. The investigating officer of this case, namely, Santosh Kumar is P.W. 14 and the Officer-in-Charge of Sidhgora Police Station, namely, Sakaldeo Ram who was part of the raiding team is P.W. 12.
6. The prosecution has tendered in evidence the written report, the inquest report and the post-mortem report. P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 have proved the seizure list prepared at the place of occurrence which has been marked as Ext.-1; Devendra Prasad Sinha-P.W. 6 is the brother of the deceased who has proved his signature on the seizure list. The informant has proved TI chart which has been marked as Ext.-1/4. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava- P.W.9 is the seizure memo witness of recovery of a blood-stained knife which was marked as Ext.-1/5. Kailash Kumar has put his signature on seizure lists of the articles recovered from Shahzada Khan and Rajesh Kashmi which have been marked as Ext.- 1/6, Ext.-1/7 and Ext.1/8. Birju Verma- P.W. 11 is also a seizure list witness and his signature has been marked as Ext.-1/9. Another seizure list witness is P.W. 12 who has evidenced the recovery of the looted articles from Indrajit Sinha, Shahzada Khan and Rajesh Kashmi. His signatures on the seizure lists have been marked as Ext.-3, Ext.-3/1, Ext.-3/2, Ext.-3/3 and Ext.-3/4. Amit Kumar- P.W. 13 has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been prepared on recovery of looted articles from the possession of Shahzada Khan. The investigating officer- P.W.14 has proved the seizure of a blood-stained knife which was marked as Ext.3/5.
7. Dr. Lallan Chaudhary- P.W.15, who has conducted the post-mortem examination, has found the following injuries on Bimla Sinha:
“(i) Ligature mark encircling the upper most part of neck with 0.5 c.m. width.
(ii) Incised wound 4.6 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. x muscle deep over most part of the neck in front.
(iii) Incised wound 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. x vocal cord deep over front and middle part of the neck.
(iv) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. x 0,25 c.m. over the right side of the neck.
(v) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x 0.25 c.m. over frontal lower part of neck.
(vi) Incised wound 3.5. c.m. x 2 c.m.x 2 c.m. over upper part of the left side neck.
(vii) Small abrasion 3 in numbers over just below left ear.
(viii) Abrasion 1.5
