1. All these appeals arising out of a common judgment and were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These appeals arising out of the judgment dated 19-2-2003 passed by Sri R.G. Singh Nagesh, learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Latehar in S.T. No. 49 of 2002 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 and also under Section 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860. For the
offence under Section 302/34 R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) each and in default of payment of fine further R.I, for one year was
imposed. R.I. for one year was imposed for the offence under Section 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860. The sentences were run concurrently. The
prosecution case in short is that P.W.-7 Sohrai Paswan, Police Choukidar gave statement at about 11 a.m. on 19-10-2001 before the Officer-in-
charge Barwadih Police Station to the effect that when he was going to attend his duty, he learnt that three persons were killed. On this information,
he reached village Khuta where the villagers told him that Raj Kumar Singh, his wife (Chinta Devi) and 11 years old girl child (Geeta Kumari) were
murdered by using sharp cutting weapon. The reason for the incident was told to be the land dispute between the deceased and the family members of
his first wife. The family members of the first wife had threatened last year that they will not allow to harvest the crop in the next year and, therefore,
before harvesting, all the three accused persons have been murdered between the night of 18/19-10-2001. On the said statement, the FIR was lodged
against unknown.
3. According to the prosecution, on 24-10-2001 the house of one Uday Sahu (not sent for trial) and the house of the appellant-Budhram Ram were
searched on their confession. From the house of Uday Sahu Rs. 1300/-, one blood stain shirt and one radio were recovered and from the house of
appellant-Budhram Ram one black and white T.V., one big and one small knife with blood stain and a pair of slippers with blood stain were recovered.
According to the prosecution, recovery was made on the basis of confessional statement of the appellant-Budhram Ram and appellant-Vijay Singh.
Both the confessions were made before the Police. The confession of Budhram Ram was recorded before the villagers including P.Ws. 3 and 6.
4. The defence denied the charges. The trial Court convicted the appellants mainly on the basis of said confessions and recovery.
5. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for appellant-Vijay Singh assisted by other learned counsels appearing for other appellants in other
cases submitted as follows.
6. The confession of the appellants-Budhram Ram and Vijay Singh are hit by Section 30 of the Evidence Act as the alleged seizure/recovery has not
been proved and consequently, the only thing which remains against these appellants is the confession before the Police. Moreover, according to P.W.
8, (the I.O.), P.Ws. 3 and 6 were present at the time of such confession but P.Ws. 3 and 6 were declared hostile and did not whisper anything about
such confessions before the Police.
7. Furthermore, the seizure witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 though admitted their signature on the seizure list, but said that seizure was not made in their
presence and their signature was obtained in the Police Station on a paper. Neither the seized articles were sent for Forensic Laboratory for
examination nor were produced before the Court.
8. He further submitted that the prosecution has tried to project different stories about the motive of the occurrence. One story is that there was
dispute between the deceased Raj Kumar Singh and the family member of his first wife regarding land and crop. The other story is that there was
enmity between the deceased (Chinta Devi) and appellants-Vijay Singh and Giriwar Singh with regarding to illegal construction of house. But none of
the story has been proved by the prosecution and only on the basis of suspicion, the appellants have been made accused. Appellant-Harendra Singh, is
son of the first wife of the deceased Raj Kumar Singh. He relied upon (2010) 1 SCC 94 : (AIR 2010 SC 566) Mohd. Ankoos v. Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and submitted that the case diary cannot be used as an evidence. He also relied upon the judgment report
in AIR 1964 SC 1184, Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar and submitted that as per Section 30 of the Evidence Act confession before the Police is
not an evidence under proved by recovery/other corroborative materials.
9. On the other hand, Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the State help lessly submitted that it appears from the case diary that the copy
of the seizure lists were given to the appellants Budhram Ram and Vijay Singh. He further submitted that though P.W. 1 and 2 admitted their
signature on the seizure list but they did not support the actual seizure/recovery for the reasons unknown.
10. The prosecution has examined eight wit nesses.
11. P.W. 1 Sanjay Kumar Mishra is the witness to the alleged seizure, of incriminating articles from the house of appellant-Budhram Ram. But he said
that Budhram Ram handed over a T.V. named Santosh, blood stain chura, one blood stain chaku and one pair of slipper to the Police in his presence.
The seizure list was prepared on which, he signed. This seizure list witness also said that Police did not seize any article in his presence and got a
paper signed in the Police Station by him and that he does not know anything about the case.
12. P.W. 2 Pramod Ram is another witness to the alleged seizure from the house of the appellant-Budhram Ram. He said that one T.V. one blood
stain chura, one chaku and a pair of slipper was recovered by the Police for which, the seizure list was prepared. He proved his signature on the
seizure list. But in the cross-examination this witness said that no articles were recovered in his presence and his signature was taken in the Police
Station on a writ ten paper which was not given to him for reading and he has got no knowledge about the case.
13. Thus, the seizure of the said articles from the house of the appellant-Budhram Ram becomes doubtful.
14. P.W. 3 Baidnath Singh and P.W. 6 Rabindra Kumar, who are the witnesses to the inquest, have been declared hostile.
15. According to the I.O.-P.W. 8, the confession of appellant-Vijay Singh was recorded in presence of P.Ws. 3 and 8 but these P.Ws. did not whisper
anything about any confession made by the appellant-Vijay Singh in their presence. They also denied to have made statements before the Police as
recorded in the case diary regarding the enmity.
16. P.W. 4 Bhola Prasad and P.W. 5 Manoj Kumar are the seizure witnesses of alleged incriminating articles from the house of Uday Sao, who has
not been sent for trial. Thus, they are not relevant in this case.
17. P.W. 7 is the informant-Choukidar-Sohrai Paswan. This witness was also declared hostile. He denied to have said anything before the Police
regarding the enmity between the deceased Raj Kumar Singh with the appellants-Giriwar Singh and Vijay Singh or with the appellant Harendra Singh.
He also said that his signature was taken in the Police Station on a blank paper.
18. P.W. 8 Arun Kumar is the I.O. of this case. He inter alia said that recovery was made on the basis of the confession of appellant-Budhram Ram;
and that all the accused persons committed the crime and distributed the looted articles which were recovered from the house of Budhram Ram and
Vijay Singh. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to Amod Narayan Singh who submitted the charge-sheet. In the cross-examination, this
witness said that on the confession of the witnesses Uday Sahu, recovery was made from the house of Budhram Ram. The confession of Vijay Singh
was recorded in presence of villagers and in presence of P.Ws. 3 and 6 and he further said that blood stained articles were neither sent for forensic
examination nor were produced in Court.
19. The post mortem report has also not been proved in this case.
20. Thus, it appears that the alleged seizure from the house of the appellant-Budhram Ram has not been fully proved and it is difficult to hold that the
confession of appellants-Budhram Ram and Vijay Singh were proved by the prosecution either by proving recovery/seizure of incriminating articles on
the basis of their confession or by any other corroborative material. As noticed above, P.W. 8 the 1.0. said that Vijay Singh confessed before the
Police and also in presence of P.Ws. 3 and 6, but P.Ws. 3 and 6 have been declared hostile and they did not say anything about such confession. The
trial Court has convicted the appellants mainly on the basis of the alleged confessions.
21. Regarding the motive the prosecution has projected two stories. One is that there was dispute with regard to the land and crop between the
deceased Raj Kumar Singh and the family members of his first wife and therefore the crime was committed by them and at their behest. The other
story of the prosecution is that there was dispute between Chinta Devi (the deceased) and the appellants Vijay Singh and Giriwar Singh and therefore,
they have committed the crime with the help of others. But the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any of these stories.
22. It is the duty of the prosecution to bring the truth and the actual culprits before the Court but in this case, in which, the entire family of three was
brutally murdered the prosecution has done a mockery of justice delivery system. It has dealt with the case as if it is case of theft of a bread loaf. The
investigation, the supervision and the prosecution of this case in Court has been done in most perfunctory manner.
23. Retrial/reinvestigation after about 10 years of the occurrence, will be a futile exercise in this case. But we direct the State Government to enquire
into the conduct of the Investigating Officers, Supervising Officers and the public prosecutors of this case. If they are found guilty, appropriate action
be taken against them, wherever they may be, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.
24. This case is a glaring example. But it is seen in a good number of cases, that the investigation/supervision/prosecution in Court, is done in most
perfunctory manner and State is failing in its duty. The State Government, should consider whether, it wants to improve the justice delivery system, or
it wants to leave it to the Court of Almighty, if there be any.
25. In the result, we have no option then to acquit the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside.
26. The appellants Giriwar Singh, Jaimangal Dubey, Someshwar Ram and Harendra Singh are on bail. They are discharged from the liability of
theirbail bonds. Appellants Vijay Singh and Budhram Ram who are in jail are directed to be released, if not wanted in any other case.
27. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Home Secretary, State of Jharkhand, for necessary action.
28. Appeal allowed.
