Shree Chandrashekhar, J
1. The sole appellant, namely, Raj Kumar Verma has faced the trial on the charge under section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code for committing
murder of Rana Singh and causing disappearance of his dead body. He has been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and R.I. for five years under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. A First Information Report vide Kotwali P.S. Case No. 698 of 2007 was lodged against Raj Kumar Verma, Bablu Verma, Dara and Hanuman
Kahar @ Anuj, on the basis of the fardbeyan of Renu Singh which was recorded on 01.10.2007 at about 20 hours. At the time when the charge-sheet
was submitted against Raj Kumar Verma, investigation with respect to the other accused persons were pending.
3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses; the informant is PW-1 and her sisters, namely, Neelam Devi, Sunita Singh and Vina
Singh were also examined as witnesses. The Investigating Officer is PW-8 and the Sub-Inspector of Police who has prepared the inquest report was
examined as PW-9.
4. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICEâ€
4. Dr. Anita Sundi-PW-7 who has conducted the post-mortem examination has found as many as six stab injuries of various dimensions on Rana
Singh. According to the doctor, the injuries on Rana Singh were caused by a sharp pointed weapon, the injures were ante-mortem in nature and time
elapsed since death was 6 to 24 hours from the post-mortem examination; the post-mortem examination was conducted on 2.10.2009 at 11:15 a.m.
5. Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, the learned Amicus has contended that: (i) the prosecution has failed to prove by cogent evidence the incriminating
circumstances sought to be proved against the appellant, (ii) the chain of circumstances is not complete, (iii) the last-seen-together evidence against
the appellant is not proved, and (iv) failure of the investigating officer to collect the incriminating articles including the crime weapon and no
explanation on recovery of the dead body of Rana Singh, have proved fatal for the prosecution.
6. The learned Amicus has relied on the decisions in “Navaneethakrishnan v. The State BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE reported in (2018) 16 SCC
161, “Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishagiri†reported in (2012) 4 SCC 12,4 “Lallu Manjhi and others vs. State of Jharkhandâ€
reported in (2003)2 SCC 401, “Sunita Vs. State of Haryana†reported in 2019 (10) SCALE 13 2and “Budhu Oraon Vs. The State of
Jharkhand†(Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 977 of 2009, to fortify her contentions.
7. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to the following incriminating circumstances in paragraph 11 of the judgment under appeal to hold that the
prosecution has proved the charge under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant:(i) the witnesses have seen the appellant
lastly in the company of Rana Singh, (ii) the dead body of Rana Singh was found in the house of the appellant,(iii) there were blood marks found in the
house of the appellant, (iv) the appellant has failed to offer any explanation on recovery of the dead body of Rana Singh from his house, (v) he has
given evasive explanation during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., and (vi) the prosecution has not proved the motive for the crime.
8. The law on circumstantial evidence is well-settled. In “Navaneethakrishnan v. The State reported in (2018) 16 SCC 161, the Supreme Court has
held that each and every incriminating circumstance sought to be relied on by the prosecution against the accused must be clearly established by
reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of circumstances from which the only irresistible conclusion about
the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt of the accused is possible. It is also well-settled that motive in a
case solely founded on circumstantial evidence provides an important link in the chain of circumstances (Refer, “Surinder Pal Jain Vs. Delhi
Administration†1993 Supp(3) SCC 681).
9. The prosecution has laid last-seen-together evidence through Rajo Singh-PW-4 and Vina Singh-PW-5. Vina Singh is the sister of the deceased and
Rajo Singh is his brother-in-law. From the cross-examination of PW-4 and PW-5, it appears that the accused persons have challenged the evidence of
these witnesses on the ground that before the investigating officer they did not disclose the name of the appellant as the person who has taken away
Rana Singh with him from his house and thereafter his dead body was recovered by the police. It is also the stand of the appellant that theft of cow of
the appellant by Rana Singh whom the appellant suspected of selling of beef was also not disclosed by the prosecution witnesses to the investigating
officer and while so, the foundation of the prosecution’s case has not been established. Rajo Singh-PW-4 has stated in his examination-in-chief
that his wife had informed him that a short height person had come to the house along with whom Rana Singh had gone away and, thereafter, he did
not come back home. His wife has also stated in her examination-in-chief that she had informed her husband that a person had come home along with
whom Rana Singh had gone away and he did not come back home thereafter. In Paragraph no. 10 of his cross-examination, PW-4 has reiterated his
statement in his examination-in-chief and PW-5 has also affirmed such statement during her cross-examination (Paragraph-9). However, the
investigating officer has deposed in the court that Rajo Singh-PW-4 and Vina Singh-PW-5 did not inform him about a person, the appellant, coming
home and taking away Rana Singh with himself. The investigating officer has also admitted that theft of cow and suspicion of the appellant about
Rana Singh selling beef were not spoken of by the prosecution witnesses before him. On such facts, it is established that PW-4 and PW-5 have
improved their statement in the court. These improvements, however, are not by way of elaboration or explanation of their statement given before the
police. Thereafter, it amounts to contradiction. The last-seen-together evidence sought to be established by prosecution through PW-4 and PW-5 has,
thus, become suspect. There is something more which prompts us to hold that the incriminating circumstance based on the last-seen-together evidence
cannot be relied on. That is the admission of PW-4 during his cross-examination. In paragraph no. 11 and 12 of his cross-examination, PW-4 says that
about 13 days after the occurrence his statement was recorded by the police and before he has seen the appellant in police lock room he had not seen
him. The aforesaid statement of PW-4 during his cross-examination makes the last-seen-together evidence completely unreliable.
10. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution which has been taken against the appellant is recovery of the dead body and blood marks
found in his house. It has come on record that an information was received in Sukhdeonagar Police Station that a dead body is lying at Devi Mandap
Road, however, no sanha entry in this regard has been produced by the prosecution. There is no reference of the person who has sent such
information to the police station, how the police has arrived at the house of the appellant and how the dead body was detected in the house of the
appellant. The independent witnesses, namely, Bhikhari Sharma and Arjun Yadav who are the inquest witnesses were not examined during the trial.
No other witness was examined by the prosecution on recovery of the dead body from the house of the appellant. The investigating officer has
deposed that he suspected that the spots found in the house of the appellant were blood marks. Admittedly, blood-stained soil was not seized by the
investigating officer and obviously there is no serological report.
11. In the above facts, we are inclined to hold that recovery of the dead body from the house of the appellant has not been proved by the prosecution.
12. The object of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put the incriminating circumstances to his knowledge but evasive reply of
an accused or failure of an accused to offer an explanation to any incriminating circumstance cannot be the basis for his conviction for the offence of
murder (Refer, “Sudru Vs. State of Chhattisgarh†(2019)8 SCC 333.) The learned sessions judge has committed a serious error in law by
referring to reply of the appellant in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.c. as evasive and as an incriminating circumstance.
13. The learned Amicus has referred to several other infirmities in the prosecution’s case, however, in view of the aforesaid findings recorded by
us without adverting to the other contentions raised by the learned Amicus, we are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove the incriminating
circumstances sought to be relied on against the appellant and the chain of circumstances is completely broken and while so, conviction of the
appellant under section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable.
14. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code dated 5.10.2010 and the order of sentence of R.I. for life
under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for five years under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code dated 6.10.2010 passed by the learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner- (F.T.C.) VIII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case no. 109 of 2008 are set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge
under section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code framed against him. He is in custody and, therefore, he shall be released forthwith if not wanted in
connection with any other case.
15. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1050 of 2010 is allowed.
16. This court appreciate the assistance rendered by Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, the learned Amicus.
17. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s).
18. Let the lower court record be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.
