Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 985
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
AMITAV K. GUPTA, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Prabhunath Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 985, 989, 990 of 2017, I.A. No. 4623 of 2019
Decided On : 28-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Surendra Singh, Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Mr. Siddhant Sinha, Mr. Achyut Swaroop, Mr. Shaurya, Ms. Priyanka.
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwary, Mrs. Vandana Singh, Mr. Yashraj Vardhan, Mr. Radhesh Sharma.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307, 324 and 120 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 161 – Explosive Substance Act – Sections 3, 4 and 5 – Possession of bomb – Murder – Appellants are aggrieved by judgment of conviction, and order of sentence, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IX-Cum F.T.C. whereby, appellants have been found guilty and convicted for offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code. – Appellants, Prabhunath Singh and Dina Nath Singh have also been convicted under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act read with 120(B) of Indian Penal Code. – All appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/- for offences under Sections 302 read with 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and in default, thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment of 5 months, and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence under Sections 307 read with 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and in default, thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months. – They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 year for offence under Sections 324 read with 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code. – Appellants, namely Prabhunath Singh and Dina Nath Singh have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years each for offence under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, read with 120(B) of Indian Penal Code. – Held, From perusal of testimony of PW-8 it is evident that he knew appellant/accused Ritesh Singh due to political connection and Ritesh Singh hailed from same constituency. However PW-20 Investigating officer, in para-16 of his deposition, has categorically stated that in statement under section161 Cr.P.C. PW-8 had not mentioned name of accused Ritesh Singh as one of accused involved in this crime. – Statement of PW-8 that he had mentioned name of Ritesh Singh in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. is uncorroborated and does not find support from testimony of investigating officer (PW-20). – Further PW-8 has admitted that he knew Ritesh Singh as he hails from same constituency, but surprisingly this witness had not disclosed name of accused Ritesh Singh immediately to PW-11, when he had accompanied her to Hospital, which creates a doubt regarding veracity of testimony of PW-8 to that extent– Court find that prosecution has failed to establish charges under section 302, 307, 324 read with 120(B) of Indian Penal Code against appellant Ritesh Singh beyond all reasonable doubt. – Appellant/accused Ritesh Singh is entitled to benefit of doubt and is hereby, acquitted of charges. – Accordingly, judgment of conviction passed by Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial is set aside in favour of Ritesh Singh, and is affirmed as against Prabhunath Singh and Dina Nath Singh. – Criminal Appeal Disposed of
JUDGMENT :
1. The captioned appeals arise out of a common Judgment hence they have been clubbed and heard together.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 18th May, 2017, and order of sentence dated 23rd May, 2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX-Cum F.T.C. Hazaribag (Jharkhand), in Sessions Trial No. 418 of 1997, whereby, the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants, Prabhunath Singh and Dina Nath Singh have also been convicted under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act read with 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/- for the offences under Sections 302 read with 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and in default, thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment of 5 months, and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Sections 307 read with 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and in default, thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months. They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 year for the offence under Sections 324 read with 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants, namely Prabhunath Singh and Dina Nath Singh have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years each for the offence under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, read with 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case as unfolded in the fardbeyan (Ext.-5), of the informant Chandni Devi (PW-11), is that on 03.07.1995 at 6.00 p.m. she was sitting in the verandah of the official residence and her husband Ashok Singh (M.L.A.) was sitting in the lawn along with Jitendra Kumar Singh (PW-5), Sunil Kumar Singh (PW-7), Pradeep Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Jai Prakash Prasad (PW-1), Anil Kumar Singh, Kameshwar Singh (PW-17), bodyguard Prahalad Paswan, Dalsingar Yadav and other six to seven persons. At about 7.00 p.m. a man wearing black pant and pink shirt, carrying a shoulder bag, came and after talking to Raghwendra Kumar Singh (PW-8), the personal assistant of her husband, sat on the chair near her husband. At about 7.20 p.m. when her husband stood up, then suddenly, the unknown person hurled a bomb at her husband, whereupon he fell down and the people present ran helter-skelter. Some of the people tried to intercept the miscreant whereupon another bomb explosion took place. The informant alongwith the body guard namely, Rustam and driver Swarth Mahto, brought the injured Ashok Singh to Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH), Patna, where the doctor declared him brought dead. It is stated that, in the meantime the persons who were sitting with her husband in the lawn also reached the Hospital. Jitendra Kumar Singh (PW-5) told the informant that the assailant, while fleeing, had thrown a bomb at Anil Kumar Singh who died on the spot. That 2-3 other persons had joined the assailant outside the quarter, and he had identified Dina Nath Singh, the younger brother of the former MLA Prabhunath Singh as one of them. Jitendra Kumar Singh told her that while escaping the miscreant had hurled a bomb on the persons chasing him due to which Pradeep Singh had sustained injury. She was told that a car and a motor-cycle were parked on the western side of the road near Quarter no1M and accused Prabhunath Singh was standing near the car. It is alleged that Dina Nath Singh along with two miscreants got into the car which was driven away by Prabhunath Singh and other two miscreants fled on the motor-cycle. She has alleged that Prabhunath Singh, Dina Nath Singh and their supporters had killed her husband due to political rivalry.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Gardanibag (Sachiwalaya) P.S. Case No. 339 of 1995 (corresponding
