The prosecution must provide substantial evidence to prove conspiracy; mere proximity or strained relationships are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT

RESERVED ON: 27.08.2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 11.09.2024 Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Both these criminal appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial 223 of 2012 / Sessions Trial No.244 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the appellant-Dr. Arvind Kumar has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC . He is also convicted under Section 120B of the IPC . Appellant- Nishi Rani Kerketta is held guilty under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC for conspiring the accused Dr. Arvind Kumar in the murder of her husband Dr. Sharad Soren.

PROSECUTION CASE

2. Deceased- Dr. Sharad Soren was the husband of appellant- Nishi Rani Kerketta and a friend of Dr. Arvind Kumar. It is said that the deceased had strained relationship with his wife and she was intimate to appellant- Dr. Sharad Soren. Both the appellants hatched conspiracy under which deceased was called to Chaibasa where appellant- Dr. Arvind Kumar was posted as a Medical Officer and there in the house of appellant, he was murdered in cold blood.

3. FIR in this case was registered on the statement of appellant- Nishi Rani Kerketta on 22.05.2012 stating therein that her husband Dr. Sharad Soren (deceased) was serving as a Doctor at SAIL Hospital, Kiriburu, Chaibasa. He had come to Bokaro and after brief stay for two days, he returned on 21.05.2012 to Kiriburu with the informant. On the same day, at 4.30 in the afternoon he went to the Hospital and while going he locked the house from outside, as she was not feeling well. When he did not return by 8 O’ Clock, she tried to contact her husband and Dr. Arvind, but their mobiles were found switched off. She got concerned and went out to enquire about her husband in the Hospital, there the Hospital staffs informed that he had gone to the Quarter of Dr. Arvind. At around 10.45, she could contact Dr. Arvind telephonically, who informed that he (deceased) was on night duty and will return in the morning.

4. On 22.05.2012 at around 12 O’ Clock, she got the key of house of Dr. Arvind from his maid servant and went to his house and found the dead body lying there in a pool of blood. The dead body had telltale marks over his face of injury caused by stabbing weapon. Informant apprehended that her husband had been killed by Dr. Arvind Kumar and in order to cause screen the evidence, had locked the house from outside and fled away from Kiriburu.

5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Nishi Rani Kerketta (appellant), Jagannathpur Kiriburu P.S. Case No.4/12 was registered under Sections 302/201 of the IPC . Police on investigation, found the complicity of the informant also in the crime and charge sheet was submitted under Sections 302 , 201 of the IPC against Dr. Arvind Kumar and on commitment, it was registered as S.T. Case No.223 of 2012. Later on, supplementary charge sheet was submitted against appellant- Nishi Rani Kerketta under Sections 302, 201 , 120B of the IPC , which was registered as S.T. Case No.244 of 2013.

6. Both the accused persons were put on trial under Sections 302, 201 , 120B of the IPC .

7. Altogether 17 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and following documents and materials have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits: -