Krishna Prasad Singh vs The State of Bihar

The sole appellant- Krishna Prasad Singh was put on trial for the charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation of causing death to Fulmani Soren intentionally. The trial court having found the appellant guilty for the said charge sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

The case of the prosecution is that Fulmani Soren (deceased) working as Sahaika at Angan Bari, was in love with the appellant - Krishna Prasad Singh @ Jhagaru Singh, but subsequently, differences arose in between them on account of monetary dispute and, therefore, appellant held out threat to Fulmani Soren of dire consequences which was divulged by Fulmani Soren to his brother-Obidhan Soren, the informant (P.W. 1). Further case is that on 17.09.1992, one Sarojni Besera (P.W. 2) engaged as Sevika at Angan Bari, stayed in the night in the house of the informant (P.W. 1) and slept along with Fulmani Soren. In the night at 12 O'' Clock, Sarojni Besera (P.W. 2) woke up and told to the informant that the appellant, who had come over there, took Fulmani Soren with him. Upon it, the informant (P.W. 1) and his wife Rasomuni Hembram (P.W. 4) went in search of Fulmani Soren but they did not find her. In the morning at 6 O'' Clock, one Nani Marandi (P.W. 5) informed them that dead body of Fulmani Soren has been lying near a pond. Upon it, the informant (P.W. 1) along with other villagers went there and found the dead body of his sister- Fulmani Soren over which there was marks of violence. In the meantime, one Jhamali Tudu (not examined) came and disclosed to them that when she came out of the house to ease herself, she found this appellant running away from the village. Thereupon, the informant- Obidhan Soren (P.W. 1) submitted a written report to Officer-in-Charge, P.S. - Jama, upon which a case was registered under Sections 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

It appears that the I.O. having taken over the investigation held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report on the same day when the dead body had been recovered and then sent the dead body for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Sushil Marandi (P.W. 3) on 19.09.1992 and found the following injuries:

(I) lacerated wound 1/2"X 1/4"X Skin deep over left side of fore head.

(II) abrasion 1"X 1" over both the elbows.

(III) defused swelling over the right side of the chest (lower portion).

On the dissection all ribs of right side were found fractured with lacerations of pleura, lungs and urinary bladder.

Accordingly, the doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext. 2) with an opinion that the death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury No. (III), which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet, upon which cognizance of offence was taken and when the case was committed to the court of Sessions, charge was framed to which appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Of them, Obidhan Soren, the informant and brother of the deceased, and Rasomuni Hembram, the wife of the informant were examined as P.Ws 1 and 4 respectively. According to them, they were told by Sarojni Besera (P.W. 2) that in the night, appellant had taken away Fulmani Soren, whose dead body was found in the morning. P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 are the witnesses to inquest, whereas P.W. 9 and P.W. 11 have proved the signature of the informant on the written report and the formal F.I.R. respectively.

Having relied upon the testimony of P.W. 2 supported by P.W. 1 and P.W. 4, the trial court did hold that it was the appellant, who was last seen in company of the deceased, was responsible for committing murder of the deceased and hence recorded the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid.

Being aggrieved with that order, this appeal has been preferred.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that only circumstance, upon which the learned Sessions Judge has based his finding, is that appellant was last seen in company with the deceased but that circumstance in absence of close proximity in between act of taking the deceased with them and the deceased being found murdered, can not be sufficient to hold a person guilty. In this respect, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant referred to a decision reported in case of Manivel and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2009 (1) JLJR 12 SC.

Having heard counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that appellant, according to the statement made in the written report, was in love with the deceased since long, but before the occurrence, differences arose in between them on account of monetary dispute, but strangely, no such evidence regarding appellant having any kind of grudge against the deceased was led as the informant (P.W. 1) and also his wife Rasomuni Hembram (P.W. 4) are silent on that point.

Further, we do find that there has been no such evidence against the appellant that the appellant was found running away from the village at an early hour at 3 O'' Clock. Thus, only evidence which has been led by the prosecution against the appellant is that the appellant took away the deceased along with him in the night at about 11-11.30 O'' Clock on 17/18.09.1992, but it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant forcibly took away the deceased, rather it appears from the evidence of P.W. 2 that the deceased willingly went along with the appellant and under this circumstance and in absence of any motive, it is hard to believe that the appellant would commit offence as has been alleged. Moreover, last seen theory can not be applied in this case for securing conviction of the appellant as admittedly, time gap in between the period when the appellant is said to have taken away the deceased and when the dead body was found is so wide that the possibility of other accused committing offence can not be ruled out and as such this last seen theory, in view of the decision rendered in Manivel''s Case (supra) would not be sufficient to hold the appellant guilty.

Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Consequently, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

In the result, this appeal is allowed.