Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Ganesh Gope son of Sri Medhu Ohdar and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 776 of 2015 With Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 962 of 2015
Decided On : 29-02-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER AND DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE - IPC SECTIONS 302, 201/34 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertain to murder and causing disappearance of evidence, respectively. The court interpreted these sections in the context of the evidence presented, particularly focusing on the 'last seen' doctrine and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The court concluded that the prosecution had established a strong case against the appellants, leading to their conviction for murder and related offenses.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Krishna Singh @ Vishal Singh, who was abducted and killed after a scuffle with the occupants of a truck. The informant, father of the deceased, reported the incident after discovering his son's body with severe injuries. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the sequence of events leading to the murder, including the identification of the appellants by eyewitnesses during a test identification parade. The court noted that the evidence of the last seen together was crucial, and the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the accused regarding the events after the abduction further supported the prosecution's case.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charges of murder and causing disappearance of evidence against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the last seen doctrine and Section 106 of the Evidence Act applied in this case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case through eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. The last seen doctrine was applicable, and the burden of proof shifted to the accused to explain the circumstances surrounding the murder, which they failed to do.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the convictions of the appellants under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the IPC were upheld, resulting in life imprisonment and additional sentences for the respective offenses.
JUDGMENT :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
1. Both the criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2018 and the order of sentence dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X/Special Judge-II, CBI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.924 of 2013 (arising out of Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.77 of 2013, G.R. Case No.3782 of 2013) whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC. All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for the offence under section 201/34 of IPC and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Lochan Singh (PW-4 – the father of the deceased) which was recorded on 13.07.2013 at 06:45 A.M. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Yogendra Shukla (PW-5–Investigating officer of the case) of Ormanjhi Police Station at Village- Chapabar. It was alleged in the FIR that on 13.07.2013 at about 04:00 A.M., the informant’s daughter, namely, Shilpa Kumari told the informant that his son namely, Krishna Singh @ Vishal Singh (deceased) had not returned home. She also told the informant that the deceased had gone alongwith his friends namely, Prashant Kumar, Shiwangi and Elisha to Ormanjhi for taking meal and this fact was disclosed to her by one Dharmveer. Thereafter, in the morning, the informant searched for his son Krishna Singh @ Vishal Singh (deceased) and went towards Ormanjhi where he came to know that a dead body was found lying on the road near Chapa Koya. The informant reached there and identified the dead body as his son Krishna Singh. The informant noticed that the body was naked except one underwear and there were severe injuries on the head of his son and marks of dragging were present all over the dead body. The informant came to know from Dharmveer and Prashant Kumar (P.W-2) that in the previous night after taking meal at Mehta Line Hotel, when the deceased with Prashant (P.W-2), Shiwangi (P.W-1) and Elisha were going in Maruti 800 No. WNW-5449 towards Kukrid, one green coloured 709 truck came from behind and tried to overtake. It was further alleged that the said truck stopped in front of the Maruti car and four persons came down and thereafter they started abusing and scuffling the deceased and Prashant and the persons in the truck forcibly lifted Krishna Singh into the truck and took him away. Thereafter the dead body of Krishna Singh was found lying on the road. The informant alleged that the persons sitting in the truck had beaten and had killed the deceased. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the case was registered at 10:00 hours as Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 77/2013 dated 13.07.2013 under Sections 302, 201/34 of IPC against unknown.
3. After completion of investigation, Charge-sheet No.107/2013 dated 31.08.2013 was submitted under sections 302, 201/34 of IPC against the appellants. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi took cognizance of the offences on 21.09.2013 under the same sections against the appellants and on 19.12.2013, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. On 24.03.2014, charges under Sections 302/34, 201/34 of IPC were framed against the appellants which were read over and explained to them in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Prosecution evidences
4. In the course of trial altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Shiwangi (P.W-1) is the eye-witness and friend of the deceased who had accompanied the deceased to Ormanjhi along with two other friends; Prashant (P.W-2) is also the eye-witness and friend of the deceased who had also accompanied the deceased to Ormanjhi alongwith P.W-1,
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Whenever any doubt emanates in mind of Court, benefit shall accrue to accused and not prosecution – Conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be....
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the accused's explanation, if consistent with the facts, can lead to acquittal.
Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside - A grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of guilt - Benefit of doubt to accused appellants.
The absence of corroborative evidence from reliable witnesses and the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive led to the overturning of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
