Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 1039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA
Nirmal Ravidas, son of Sudhir Ravidas - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 236 of 2016 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 419 of 2016 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 653 of 2016
Decided On : 31-07-2020
For the Appellants :Mr. Pravin Kumar Rana, Mr.A.K.Sahani and Mr. Ajit Kumar, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwary, Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay
The prosecution must establish the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and gaps in the evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimony can undermine the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeals - Conviction under section 302/120-B IPC and section 201 IPC - [IPC 302, IPC 120-B, IPC 201] - The judgment discusses the application of circumstantial evidence, the Hodge's rule, and the triple test for examining circumstantial evidence. The court also evaluates the admissibility of confessional statements under section 27 of the Evidence Act and the significance of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment emphasizes the importance of last-seen-together evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution in a criminal trial. Ultimately, the court finds gaps in the prosecution's case and concludes that the charge against the appellants has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The son of the informant, Ajay Ravidas, went missing after leaving home with the appellants. His dead body was later recovered, leading to the trial of the appellants for murder and conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution failed to establish the charge against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt due to gaps in the evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimony.
Issues: The admissibility of confessional statements, the significance of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the importance of last-seen-together evidence, and the burden of proof on the prosecution in a criminal trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for cogent and consistent evidence in a criminal trial, the application of the Hodge's rule and the triple test for examining circumstantial evidence, and the limitations of section 27 of the Evidence Act in admitting confessional statements.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellants were set aside, and they were ordered to be released from jail custody.
JUDGEMENT :
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
The appellants in these criminal appeals – Nirmal Ravidas, Sadhan Chandra Dey and Srikant Das – have challenged the judgment of conviction under section 302/120-B IPC and section 201 IPC dated 27.01.2016 and the order of sentence dated 29.01.2016 passed against them for the aforesaid offences in Sessions Trial No. 535 of 2010.
2. Paresh Ravidas is the informant of this case. On 24.07.2010, his son Ajay Ravidas left home in the afternoon on a phone call of Srikant Das. He had gone to Sahid Mela Maidan with Srikant Das, Sadhan Chandra Dey and Nirmal Ravidas and thereafter he did not come back home. The informant and his wife enquired from Srikant Das, Nirmal Ravidas and Sadhan Chandra Dey, the appellants, but they did not give any satisfactory response. Next day, the informant gave his fardbeyan to the police and on that basis Nirsa P.S. Case No. 183 of 2010 was lodged against the appellants under section 364/120-B IPC. Srikant Das was arrested on the same day and on his disclosure dead body of Ajay Ravidas was recovered from Hathbari forest. Accordingly, the offences under section 302 and 201 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act were added in the Report. After the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and they have faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of Ajay Ravidas in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and causing disappearance of his dead body.
3. During the trial the prosecution has examined eight witnesses; the informant was examined as PW-7. Budhni Devi, the mother of the deceased has been examined as PW-6 and along with her, Bahadur Ravidas PW-1, Doman Ravidas PW-3, Elaychi Devi PW-4 and Sunil Kumar Ravidas PW-5 were examined by the prosecution on the point of last-seen-together. The prosecution has laid documentary evidence, such as, fardbeyan, postmortem report, formal FIR, inquest report, confessional statement of the appellants and certified copies of the seizure list, sanction order and deposition of the witnesses in G.R. Case No. 2595 of 2010 which was separately lodged against the appellants under the Arms Act. On behalf of the appellants copies of the arrest memo and charge-sheet were filed primarily to show that confessional statement of the appellants were recorded before the informant gave his fardbeyan to the police and a First Information Report was lodged.
4. The parents of Ajay Ravidas were at home in the afternoon of 24.7.2010. It was one summer’s day and their presence in their house is quite natural. PW-6, the mother of the deceased has stated that about 4:00 – 4:30 p.m. her son received a phone call and went outside. When he was leaving home on her inquiry he told her that Srikant Das has called him to Sahid Mela Maidan. She has deposed in the Court that when her son was going out she also came out of the house and followed him to some distance. She has said that she has seen Srikant Das, Sadhan Chandra Dey and Nirmal Ravidas going with her son towards Sahid Mela Maidan. She has told these things to PW-7, her husband, and both of them have stated that in the evening when their son did not come back home they went to the house of Srikant Das and made inquiries from him. They have asked other two accused also about their son but they did not disclose anything rather they started quarrelling with them. Both PW-6 and PW-7 have stated that Srikant Das was arrested by the police and he confessed that he has killed their son. There is another set of witnesses who have seen the appellants on 24.07.2010 at different places. PW-1 has stated that on 24.07.2010 while returning home from Gopalgunj he has seen the appellants talking near Hathbari jungle at around 5.00 p.m. PW-3 has stated that on 24.7.2010 at about 5:00 p.m. he was passing through Sahid Mela Maidan and at that time the appellants were discussing something amongst themselves. In the evening when he came back home he did not find Ajay Ravidas at home and on inquiry his brother, t
