Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 1041
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Pramod @ Nandu Kumhar @ Nandu - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1181 of 2016
Decided On : 03-07-2020
For the Appellant :Mr. Mahesh Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, APP
Headnote:
Murder - Recovery of incriminating article(s) - Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act - The court discussed the admissibility of the confessional statement of the appellant and the recovery of the pistol at his instance under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It referred to legal precedents such as 'Pulkuri Kottaya vs. Emperor' and 'K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh' to establish the admissibility of the confessional statement and the conditions necessary to bring Section 27 into operation. The court also emphasized the importance of the investigating officer's testimony in proving the confessional statement and the recovery of the incriminating article. The judgment highlighted the relevance of the forensic report in connecting the recovered pistol with the bullet extracted from the deceased's head, ultimately leading to the conviction of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Sanjay Gope by firing a pistol. The prosecution presented evidence including the confessional statement of the appellant, eyewitness testimonies, and forensic reports to establish the appellant's guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the charges framed against the appellant proved and convicted him under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It concluded that the prosecution had firmly proved the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence and his firing on Sanjay Gope, leading to the appellant's liability for conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of the confessional statement and the recovery of the pistol at the appellant's instance, the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, and the establishment of the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admissibility of the confessional statement and the recovery of the pistol under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, and the chain of events on the day of the occurrence to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction for murder and under the Arms Act was upheld. The lower-court records were ordered to be transmitted to the court concerned.
JUDGMENT :
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
The sole appellant has faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of Sanjay Gope by a fire-arm in furtherance of common intention of all.
2. On 19th May 2010, Sanjay Gope left home with Babloo Gope and Dinesh Gope, his brothers, for distributing the invitation card for his marriage which was to be held on 25.05.2010. They proceeded on a motorcycle from Line Tola, Gwala Para and stopped near a Peepal tree for taking respite from the scorching sun. It was about 2:40 p.m when Nandu Kumhar, Mithu Nepali and Mangal Tudu came there and called Sanjay Gope. After they moved about 80 yards towards Sahara City, Nandu Kumhar fired from his pistol at Sanjay Gope. He was brought to Siddesh Nursing Home on a tempo and thereafter he was taken to Tata Memorial Hospital (T.M.H), Jamshedpur where he was admitted in C.C.U. There fardbeyan of Babloo Gope was recorded by S.I.-Anand Kumar Mishra, o/c R.I.T -P.S in the midnight at about 01:30 a.m on 20.05.2010 and on that basis Adityapur P.S. Case No. 140 of 2010 was registered against Nandu Kumhar, Mithu Nepali and Mangal Tudu under section 324 and 307/34 IPC. In course of the treatment Sanjay Gope died and accordingly the offence under section 302 IPC was added in the Report. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the above-named accused persons and charges under section 302/34 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act were framed against them vide order dated 03.11.2010. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried whereupon S.T. Case No. 131 of 2010 commenced.
3. The trial against Mithu Nepali @ Prem Bahadur, who had died, was separated vide order dated 18.05.2012 and against Mangal Tudu, the third accused, who had absconded, was separated vide order dated 18.08.2015.
4. The learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharsawan has found the charges framed against the appellant proved and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-under section 302 IPC and R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-under section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, it is directed that the appellant shall undergo further imprisonment on both counts.
5. Mr. Mahesh Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and recovery of the crime weapon at the instance of the appellant is not proved because the Officer Incharge who has recorded the confessional statement of the appellant has not been examined during the trial and, moreover, the prosecution has failed to establish motive for the crime and while so it must be held that the appellant has been convicted on mere suspicion.
6. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses; the informant who is the younger brother of the deceased has been examined as P.W. 2.
7. The prosecution has projected Babloo Gope-P.W. 2 and Dinesh Gope-P.W. 3 as the eyewitnesses. Kalipado Gope-P.W. 1 is father of the deceased, however, during the trial he was declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are co-villagers of the informant and P.W. 6 is his uncle. The Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.8 and Shyamal Prasad Ram is a Court witness who has been examined to prove that Sanjay Gope was treated at Siddesh Nursing Home by Dr. Vinay Siddesh. The investigating officer has stated that he received an information on 28.05.2010 that the deceased has died and his dead-body is lying at T.M.H and there he has prepared the inquest report. He has further stated that when Sanjay Gope did not regain consciousness he was taken to Cuttack where he was operated upon and the bullet was extracted from his head which was seized by the police. He says that he went to Cuttack and recorded statement of Dr. Sanatan Rath who has informed him that operation was conducted by him, Dr. Rewati Das and Dr. Pramod Patra. He has sent the pistol and the bullet which was extrac
