Rajjan Sonar vs State of U.P.

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A on the prayer for bail of accused appellant and perused the impugned judgement and order of the trial court as well as trial court record.

This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Rajjan Sonar, son of Ram Deen alias Ram Mohan Soni, resident of Gurahi Bazaar, Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-1, Gonda in S.T. No. 377 of 1993 (Case Crime No. 330 of 1993); State v. Rajjan Sonar and Anr. under Sections 364/34, 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the co-accused Pratap Godiya and held the accused-appellant guilty under Sections 364, 302 I.P.C, consequently, he has convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/s 364 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- u/s 302 I.P.C. In case of default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and 6 months under Sections 364 and 302 I.P.C. respectively.

The prosecution case as borne out from the trial court record, in brief, is that the complainant Rampal, son of Ram Deen, resident of Village Nooropur, Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda had lodged a written report on 3.7.1993 at 5.20 P.M. at Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda with the allegation that when he was not present at his house during the day, the accused Rajjan Sonar and Suresh Singh came to his house at about 8.00 A.M. and took his son Daddu alias Vinay Prakash with them in the presence of Shobha Ram and Ram Swaroop who were his neighbours. When he came back to his house, this fact was told by them to him. He continued to search of his son but he could not find him. The accused Rajjan Sonar and Suresh Singh were men of criminal nature. Therefore, he apprehends that his son might be done to death. On the written report of the complainant, the police of Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda had registered a case against the accused u/s 364 I.P.C. for investigation.

The accused appellant on the date of lodging of the F.I.R., was arrested by the police in another case Crime No. 331 of 1993. On the next day, the complainant accompanied by his father Ram Deen went to the Police Station where the accused was already lodged in lock-up. The S.O. of Police Station took out the accused appellant from the lock-up and interrogated him in their presence. He confessed that he along with co-accused Pratap Godiya had committed the murder of Daddu alias Vijay Prakash. He also informed the S.O. that he could get the dead body of the deceased recovered. Consequently, the S.O. along with police party, complainant and his father as well as other witnesses went to the place pointed out by the accused appellant and recovered the dead body of the deceased.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the accused appellant is that the complainant was not eye-witness of the case. As per version of the F.I.R., Shobha Ram and Ram Swaroop, the neighbours of the complainant were present at the time the accused had taken away his son but these witnesses were not examined by the prosecution who were best witnesses. The complainant Ram Pal in his examination-in-chief did not name his father Ram Deen as witness. The prosecution examined Ram Deen, the father of the complainant as P.W.4 who had stated that the accused Rajjan Sonar and Suresh Singh had taken away his grand son in his presence but he had not stated about the presence of Shobha Ram and Ram Swaroop who find place in the F.I.R. Therefore, the presence of Ram Deen (P.W.4) at the time the accused were said to have taken away the deceased becomes highly doubtful.

The further submission of learned Counsel for the accused appellant is that the S.O. of the Police Station, Colonelganj in the present of police party and witnesses recovered the dead body of the deceased on the pointing out of the accused appellant. Ram Deen (P.W.4) was eye-witness of the inquest report. He in his cross-examination has admitted that he had signed the inquest papers at the police station. The recovery memo of dead body as well as inquest report had not been proved by any of the police officer, even the Investigating Officer of the case had not been examined by the prosecution without any explanation.

Learned Counsel for the accused appellant submits that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The evidence led by the prosecution against the accused appellant is of last seen by the witness Ram Deen (P.W.4) and the recovery of the dead body on the pointing out of the accused. As regards the statement of Ram Deen (P.W.4), his statement is not worth reliable. As regards the recovery of dead body of the deceased, no police officer who were witnesses of the recovery was produced by the prosecution. The statement of Dukh Haran (P.W.2) who is said to be witness of recovery stands on the same footing as Ram Deen (P.W.4). The chain of circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is not complete to draw inference that the deceased was done to death only by the accused appellant. The finding of the trial court is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence. The accused appellant had been in jail for more than five years during the trial and he is in jail after passing the judgment and order by the trial court. In this way, he has spent more than 11 years in jail. Therefore, he deserves to be released on bail during the pendency of appeal.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that although the name of Ram Deen (P.W.4) is not mentioned in the F.I.R. but being father of the complainant he was best witness who could be expected to be present at the time the accused had taken away the deceased. His statement remained unchallenged. Therefore, he cannot be disbelieved. On the pointing out of the accused appellant, the dead body of the deceased was recovered. The recovery of dead body of the deceased had been proved by the complainant Ram Pal (P.W.1) and Dukh Haran (P.W.2). In this way, the circumstantial evidence available against the accused appellant forms a complete chain which shows the involvement of the accused appellant in the commission of the murder of the deceased. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, the accused appellant does not deserve to be released on bail.

Considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstance of the case as well as the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the appeal, the accused appellant may be released on bail.

Let appellant Rajjan Sonar be released on bail in the aforesaid Sessions Trial number during pendency of the appeal on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

However, the realization of fine is not stayed and the same be deposited by the appellant, if not already deposited, within two months from the date of his release, failing which this order of bail shall stand cancelled.