Munna Kumar Yadav @ Badhot @ Baghot And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard, Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel for the appellants assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate in I.A. No.4394 of 2019 in Crl. Appeal (DB) No.52 of 2019, I.A. No.3917 of 2019 in Crl. Appeal (DB) No.111 of 2019 and I.A. No.3918 of 2019 in Crl. Appeal (DB) No.30 of 2019.

All these three interlocutory applications have been filed for grant of bail to the appellants during pendency of their criminal appeals. They are being heard together, as they are arising out of common judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.217 of 2013 [arising out of Saraiyahat (Hansdiha) P.S. Case No.226 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.1298 of 2012] by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-Cum- F.T.C. Offences Against Women, Dumka, whereby altogether six accused persons have been convicted by the learned trial court under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is absolutely no legal material against the appellants. The belt which has been seized by the Police on the confessional statement of the accused persons, cannot be taken as a legal material except assumingly if considered, only against Fantush Mandal @ Ghanshyam Mandal. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants has further submitted that, the belt has thickness of 1" width, while as per the Post-mortem report ligature mark is of ½" width. As such, this belt cannot be accepted as the weapon of assault which has caused such ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants has further submitted that brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the victim have not been examined in this case. Learned Senior counsel has further submitted that neither the accused has been put in T.I.P. nor the belt has been put in T.I.P. The vehicle has also not been identified by its registration number nor the same has been put in T.I.P. by the prosecution. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that on the basis of confidential information received by the Police, from one Nepali that a Bolero vehicle has been used in the commission of the offence, the Police on suspicion has arrested these accused persons whereas Nepali @ Narender Isher examined as P.W.6, has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the medical evidence totally belies the prosecution case so far as the rape and thrusting the stick in the private part is concerned. As such the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail by suspending their sentence since they are in custody since 22.02.2013.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State has vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted that it is a case where the victim-lady (P.W.9) along with her husband and relatives were intercepted by white colour Bolero vehicle, on which these seven persons were travelling. Three of them got down from the same and thereafter they indulged in scuffle. As per the fardbeyan, one of the accused was in the age-group of 20-22 years wearing blue shirt and black pant, well built, fair in complexion, of 5' height, another accused was having round face, well-built, wearing T-shirt in the age-group 30-35 years and one other accused person, well-built, fair in complexion, height 5'6" wearing black full-shirt caught hold of Maneshwar Soren, chased them and dragged them in the vehicle. Thereafter they fled away. The informant alleged that after hearing all this information, he went in search of the lady. During search, it was found that the Police has found a dead-body of a man under Hansdiha Police Station in Dhubai river and an injured lady in unconscious condition and thereafter the informant went there. During investigation, the victim was examined by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 20.01.2013 and she has disclosed the name of the accused persons, as she has learnt their names while the appellants /accused persons were taking the name of each other while talking when she was taken by the accused persons. One of the accused who has sustained injury on the head because of the assault by Maneshwar Soren (deceased) by means of stand of the bicycle causing bleeding injury was disclosed as Paltu. The accused who has sustained injury on the head was Paltu to whom the other accused persons were asking to go before Doctor for treatment, but he was not ready for that as he has not sustained serious injury. On the basis of such investigation, the Police has arrested the accused persons. On the basis of the confessional statement of the accused the belt used in commission of the offence, buried in the sand was recovered as they have claimed that they can lead to its recovery. On the basis of that confession, the same was recovered from the river and the seizure-list was prepared on which all these four appellants, namely, Chandra Kishore Rana, Rajesh Marik, Bhola Marik and Fantus Mandal @ Ghanshyam Mandal have put their signatures.

Learned counsel for the State has thus, submitted that the confession of the accused leading to recovery of the belt which was used in commission of the murder of the husband of the victim is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. As such, there is legal material so far as involvement of the appellants are concerned. Therefore, they do not deserve the privilege of bail by suspending their sentence.

We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material brought on record. It is case where the victim lady who has sustained serious injuries, has disclosed the names of the accused persons, on the basis of that these accused persons have been arrested. The belt used in commission of the offence was recovered on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused and the seizure-list of the same was prepared in their presence. The accused persons have not explained in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that why they have been falsely implicated in this case. Apart from that they have also failed to explain as to how they got knowledge that the belt which has been used in commission of the offence is buried under the sand in the river.

Considering the materials brought on record and the gravity and seriousness of the offence where the husband has been killed by strangulation and the wife has been subjected to rape, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellants by suspending their sentence. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is hereby rejected, at this stage.

The material exhibit i.e. belt which has been brought by the Police officer and produced before this Court is handed-over to him so as to be kept in safe custody.

All the aforesaid three interlocutory applications stand dismissed.