Pralay @ Prem Pradhan VsState Of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Singh Chandel, J

Since all the appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are heard and decided together.

The appeals are directed against the judgment dated 14.5.2015 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.48 of 2014, whereby all the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction

Sentence

Under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code

Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2,000 with default stipulation

Under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (2 counts)

Imprisonment for Life (2 counts) and fine of Rs.4,000 (2 counts) with default stipulation

Under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code

Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000 with default stipulation

All the sentences are directed to run concurrently

Names of the deceased persons are Ratnibai and Keshav Ranjan. Both were residing in Stationpara, Village Kotraliya. Case of the prosecution is that the deceased persons had got constructed a residential premises in which they were living and were also giving other rooms of that premises on rent. The incident occurred in the intervening night of 19th and 20th of August, 2013. 15 days prior to the incident, Appellant Ravi alias Rinku alias Ravishankar had taken one room on rent from the deceased persons telling them that he was doing business of selling of bangles along with co-accused persons. In the intervening night of 19th and 20th of August, 2013, all the Appellants/accused persons looted ornaments worn by deceased Ratnibai on her body and cash and mobile phone of Micromax company kept in the pocket of deceased Keshav and caused their murder. Further case of the prosecution is that the ornaments and cash kept in the almirah of the deceased persons were also looted. Thereafter, all the accused persons tied the bodies of the deceased persons with saree and stone and threw their bodies in the well situated in the residential premises of the deceased persons. Pradeep Kumar Chouhan (PW1), nephew of the deceased persons saw the dead body of deceased Ratnibai in the said well on 20.8.2013 at about 2 p.m. Then he lodged morgue intimation (Ex.P1). In the evening of 20.8.2013, police officials reached the spot. Darkness had taken place at that time and, therefore, the dead body of Ratnibai was not taken out from the well. On 21.8.2013 at about 8 A.M., after taking out the dead body of Ratnibai, when again hook was thrown into the well, dead body of Keshav was found. Thereafter, Dehati Morgue Intimation (Ex.P2) was lodged by Pradeep (PW1). Inquest proceedings of the dead bodies of Ratnibai and Keshav were conducted vide Ex.P5 and P6, respectively. Post mortem of the dead bodies was conducted by Dr. Ratna Manik Meshram (PW6). Post mortem reports are Ex.P27 and P28. Cause of death of the deceased persons was asphyxia due to throttling. During the course of investigation, on the basis of disclosure statements of the Appellants, looted articles and mobile phone of deceased Keshav were seized from the Appellants. Seized articles were identified by Pradeep (PW1), Sitadevi (not examined) and Kumari Chouhan (PW13) vide identification memo (Ex.P12). On 12.11.2013, test identification parade of the Appellants was also conducted vide Ex.P11 upon which they were identified by the witnesses. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed the charges.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellants denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. In their defence, Appellant Ravi examined himself as DW1 and one Laxminarayan has also been examined as DW2 by the Appellants.

On completion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned in second paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the appeals.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respective Appellants argued that without there being sufficient and clinching evidence available on record the Trial Court has convicted the Appellants. There is no eyewitness of the incident available in the case and the Trial Court has convicted the Appellants only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. There is no documentary evidence available on record to establish that the Appellants were residing in the premises of the deceased persons as tenants. There is also no clinching evidence led by the prosecution to show that anybody in the village had seen the Appellants in the village before the incident. It was further argued that arrest of Appellant Raju was done on 7.9.2013, Appellant Pralay Pradhan on 8.9.2013, Appellant Himalay Pradhan on 8.9.2013 and Appellant Ravi alias Rinku on 4.10.2013, but test identification parade of the Appellants was conducted on 12.11.2013. The prosecution has not explained the inordinate delay in conducting the test identification parade of the Appellants. It was further argued that though some ornaments were seized from the Appellants during the course of investigation, the evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that there were no specific identification on the said ornaments and they were common ornaments which are generally available with all the persons in villages. There is no evidence available to show that the ornaments were of the deceased persons themselves. The incident was of intervening night of 19th and 20th of August, 2013 and the ornaments were seized on 8.9.2013 and 8.10.2013 and the identification of the ornaments was done on 12.11.2013. 1-2 months after the incident, if any ornaments are seized from the Appellants, it does not mean that the Appellants had committed murder of the deceased persons. The act of the Appellants falls under the offence under Section 411 IPC only. Looking to the entire evidence, chain of circumstances is not complete. Therefore, conviction of the Appellants is not sustainable. Reliance was placed on Sonu @ Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2013, Supreme Court, Limbaji v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 10 SCC 340, Ratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 15 SCC 754, Raj Kumar @ Raju v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 11 SCC 160, State of Rajasthan v. Talevar, (2011) 11 SCC 666, Nagappa Dondiba Kalal v. State of Karnataka, 1980 (Supp) SCC 336, Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406, Bharat v. State of M.P., 2003 CriLJ 1297, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif Haider etc., AIR 2019 SC 38, Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2014 SCW 1364 and Hari Nath v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 345.

Opposing the above contentions, Learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. It was argued that sufficient evidence is available on record which shows that all the Appellants were residing in the premises of the deceased persons as tenants from before 15 days of the incident. The evidence also shows that immediately after the incident all the Appellants left the door of the room open in which they were living and disappeared from the village without any information. Immediately after the incident why did they disappear from the village, no explanation has been offered by them. There is also sufficient evidence available on record which shows that the looted articles were seized from the Appellants and were duly identified by the witnesses. Chain of circumstances is complete. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellants.

We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the statements of the witnesses and other evidence available on record with utmost circumspection.

Conviction of the Appellants is based upon the circumstantial evidence only. The main circumstances on the basis of which the Trial Court has convicted the Appellants are as under:

(i) The Appellants were living in the deceased persons’ house as tenants and soon before the incident Kumari (PW13) had seen them living in the said house.

(ii) Immediately after the incident the Appellants left the house and the village and disappeared and they were not seen again in the village.

(iii) No ornaments were found on the dead body of Ratnibai which she was normally wearing on her body.

(iv) The said ornaments were seized from the Appellants on the basis of their disclosure statements and they have not offered any explanation how those ornaments came into their possession.

With regard to Circumstance No.(i), Pradeep (PW1), Vijay (PW3), both grandsons of the deceased persons, Manoj (PW2), nephew of the deceased persons, Kumari (PW13), daughter of the deceased persons deposed that the deceased persons had got constructed 8-10 rooms in their residential premises for the purpose of giving those rooms on rent and at the time of incident two rooms were occupied by tenants. According to the Court statements of above four witnesses, in one rented room, the Appellants were living for the last 15 days. The above statements of the four witnesses are not rebutted during their cross-examination and they have remained firm on this point. According to the Court statement of Kumari (PW13), 1 day prior to the incident also, she had visited the house of her mother Ratnibai and at that time, i.e., at about 7-8 A.M. it was seen by her that all the Appellants were sitting in the rented room which was taken by Appellant Ravi on rent. Though the above fact is not mentioned in her diary statement (Ex.D1) in the same manner as is deposed by her before the Trial Court, in her diary statement (Ex.D1) it is mentioned that when she visited the house of her mother at that time she saw them there. The above statement of this witness is not duly rebutted in her cross-examination. On the contrary, during cross-examination of Manoj (PW2), in paragraph 7, on a suggestion being given to him that he was acquainted with Appellant Ravi well before, he admitted the fact and thus this fact also corroborates the prosecution case that Appellant Ravi was living along with other Appellants there as tenants.

During the course of investigation, on 12.11.2013, test identification parade of Appellants Raju, Pralay and Himalay was conducted vide Ex.P11. During the test identification parade, Pradeep (PW1) and Vijay (PW3) identified all the above 3 accused persons/Appellants. Both these witnesses as well as Manoj (PW2) and Kumari (PW13) also identified all the Appellants in the Court during recording of their statements. It was argued by Learned Counsel for the Appellants that Appellant Raju was arrested on 7.9.2013 and Appellants Himalay and Pralay were arrested on 8.9.2013, but test identification parade was conducted on 12.11.2013. The inordinate delay in conducting the test identification parade has not been explained by the prosecution. True that the test identification parade was conducted after 2 months of the arrest of the above Appellants, but why this inordinate delay in conducting the test identification parade was committed, no explanation was sought from Investigating Officer D.L. Mishra (PW16). Therefore, if any delay has occurred in conducting the test identification parade, that does not adversely affect the prosecution case. Moreover, all the Appellants were identified by the witnesses in the Court also. Therefore, Circumstance No.(i), i.e., the Appellants were living in the premises of the deceased persons as tenants and 1 day prior to the incident all the Appellants were seen by Kumari (PW13) in the said house is well established.

As regards Circumstance No.(ii), Pradeep (PW1) categorically deposed that after the incident having heard noise other tenants of the said house reached at the spot but the Appellants did not come there. According to this witness, they went to the room of the Appellants and saw that the said room was open and the Appellants had disappeared from there with their belongings. On this point also, this witness has remained firm during cross-examination and the above statement of this witness has also not duly been rebutted.

With regard to Circumstance No.(iii), Kumari (PW13), daughter of deceased Ratnibai and Pradeep (PW1), grandson of deceased Ratnibai and Vijay (PW3), another grandson of deceased Ratnibai deposed that deceased Ratnibai used to ear 4 gold bangles, silver kardhan, gold ear tops, gold nose top and 1 chain made of gold and pearl. When her dead body was taken out from the well, no ornament was found on her body. Pradeep (PW1) and Vijay (PW3) further deposed that when they went to the room of the deceased persons, they saw that pearls of a chain and 1 gold wheat seed were spread there. The above statement of these two witnesses are also not rebutted during their cross-examination. Thus, it is also established that on taking out of the dead body of Ratnibai, no ornaments were found on her body and in the room of deceased persons pearls of a chain and 1 gold wheat seed were spread.

As regards Circumstance No.(iv), case of the prosecution is that on the basis of disclosure statements of the Appellants recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, vide seizure memo Ex.P14 1 silver kardhan from Appellant Raju, vide seizure memo Ex.P19 1 gold nose top and 4 gold bangles from Appellant Himalay, vide seizure memo Ex.P17 4 gold wheat seeds and 2 gold lockets from Appellant Pralay and vide seizure memo Ex.P21 1 gold ear top and 1 silver chain from Appellant Ravi were seized and on 12.11.2013 the seized articles were identified vide Ex.P12 by Pradeep (PW1), Kumari (PW13) and Sitadevi (not examined). Recording of the disclosure statements of the Appellants and the seizures of the ornaments as described above were duly corroborated by Pradeep (PW1) and Kumari (PW13) though they have admitted the fact that the ornaments identified by them are normally available in the market and such kinds of ornaments are worn by the villagers. True that identification of the ornaments was done after 2 months of their recovery, but why this delay was committed, no explanation has been sought for by the prosecution from Investigating Officer D.L. Mishra (PW16). It is also true that the seized ornaments are normally available in the market, but the seized ornaments were identified by the close relatives of deceased Ratnibai, i.e., her daughter Kumari (PW13) and grandson Pradeep (PW1), who used to see those ornaments on the body of deceased Ratnibai. Therefore, we do not find any ground to disbelieve their statements in this regard.

On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is well established that the circumstances are well established that the Appellants were living in one room of the residential premises of the deceased persons on rent 15 days from before the incident. Just 1 day prior to the incident also, the Appellants were seen inside the rented room by Kumari (PW13). It is also established that immediately after the recovery of the dead bodies, it was found that the Appellants had already left the rented room along with their belongings. They had left the room open and disappeared from the village without any information to anyone and were not seen in the village again. Reliance was placed on Sujit Biswas case (supra), in which, dealing with the subject issue, it was observed as under:

“23. Thus, in a case of this nature, the mere abscondence of an accused does not lead to a firm conclusion of his guilty mind. An innocent man may also abscond in order to evade arrest, as in light of such a situation, such an action may be part of the natural conduct of the accused. Abscondence is in fact relevant evidence, but its evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding circumstances, and hence, the same must only be taken as a minor item in evidence for sustaining conviction. (See Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 SCC 439 and Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B., (2011) 11 SCC 754.”

But, the case in hand is not only of absconding of the Appellants. Instead of that, the case is that the Appellants who had come to live in the room 15 days prior to the incident, left the room open and disappeared from the village immediately after the incident without any information to anyone and did not appear again in the village and they have not offered any explanation in this regard in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, later on, the ornaments belonging to deceased Ratnibai were also seized from them.  Thus, it is established that they had absconded due to their guilt only. In our considered view, all the circumstances discussed above clearly indicate that the Appellants  were  the  persons  who  committed  the  loot  of  the ornaments from the deceased and they only were the persons who committed the murder of both the deceased persons. In our considered view, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellants.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.