(Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.)
Tarni Prasad Swankar _____________ Appellant
v.
Ranjit Kumar and Anr. Etc. _________ Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal Nos. 102-104 of 2010, decided on May 12, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. These appeals, by special leave, have been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Death Reference No. 9 of 2004 (State of Bihar v. Ranjit Kumar) with Criminal Appeal No. 788 of 2004 (Ranjit Kumar v. State of Bihar) and Criminal Appeal No. 845 of 2004 (Satya Narayan v. State of Bihar), whereby the High Court disposed of the said appeals and the death reference case by a common judgment. The Trial Court by judgment dated 14.10.2004 and order dated 15.10.2004, passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court (Fast Track), Munger, Bihar, in Sessions Trial No. 571 of 1982, sentenced respondent No. 1 Ranjit Kumar to capital punishment (death sentence) under Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”, for short) and these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order. The High Court after dealing with the said matter acquitted the respondents herein, allowed the appeals and the death reference was answered in the negative.
2. Before we deal with the matter in question, we must record that during the pendency of these appeals before this Court, the respondent Satya Narayan Prasad has already expired on 12th January, 2015. The appellant did not dispute the said fact and hence the appeal against the said Satya Narayan Prasad has abated.
3. Facts of this case, briefly stated, are as follows. According to the prosecution, on 23.3.1982 at 1530 Hrs., the deceased Bitten Sonar and his son Rajesh Sonar were proceeding homewards to take their meals and as they reached in front of the house of one Kamla Babu, an altercation in front of the shop of one Maya took place between Bitten and Rajesh on the one hand, and Satya Narayan Prasad and his four sons, namely, Rajesh Kumar, Arun, Anand and Ranjit, on the other hand, and as a consequence thereof Satya Narayan Prasad brought out a gun from his shop, handed over to his son Ranjit and told him to shoot, whereupon the accused persons started assaulting Bitten Sonar and Rajesh Sonar with a weapon, like a small axe. Thereafter, Ranjit fired at Bitten with his gun killing him at the spot and Arun poured acid from a bottle on the face of Bitten. Rajesh son of Bitten started fleeing whereupon Ranjit fired at Rajesh who also died at the spot. The further case of the prosecution is that the informant Tarni Prasad and deceased Bitten had enmity with Satya Narayan Prasad in respect of a shop, a suit wherefor was pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge and, allegedly, this also happened to be the motive for the occurrence. On the basis of such facts, Jamal Pur P.S. Case No. 64 of 1982 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. as also Section 27 of the Arms Act was instituted against accused Satya Narayan Prasad and his four sons. Investigation of the case was taken up by S.I. Ashok Kumar Das (PW-10). He inspected the place of occurrence, got inquest report of Bitten Sonar and Rajesh Sonar prepared (Exts.5 and 5/A) by A.S.I. Suraj Deo Jha, who also prepared the seizure lists (Exts. 4, 4/A and 4/B) of the several articles seized from the place of occurrence. The dead bodies of Bitten and Rajesh were sent for post-mortem examination which was done by Dr. B.N. Singh (P.W.11). Thereafter, S.I. Ashok Kumar Das handed over charge of the investigation to Inspector Ram Lakhan Prasad (P.W.9), who completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the aforesaid five persons. Charges were framed by the Sessions Court under Sections 148 and 302 of I.P.C. as also Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused Ranjit Kumar.
4. It should be mentioned here that for the same occurrence Jamal Pur P.S. Case No. 63 of 1982 was registered on the statement of Ranjit Kumar, son of Satya Narayan Prasad. The alleged facts, according to this case, are that Satya Narayan Prasad and his younger brother who were sitting in the utensil shop situated by the side of the jewellery shop. Bitten Sonar along with his two sons and two others, entered into the shop of Satya Narayan Prasad and started abusing them, whereas one person assaulted Satya Narayan Prasad causing injury to him, following which Bitten and his son Rajesh started looting the jewellery shop at the point of country made pistol. In the meantime, Arun the younger brother of Ranjit Kumar, brought out a gun and handed it to Satya Narayan Prasad, but as Bitten and his son Rajesh started fleeing along with the looted jewellery, Rajesh and his brother started snatching the jewellery from them, when his father fired gunshot causing injury to Bitten and his son Rajesh, who after fleeing for some distance, fell down on the road and died. A loaded country made pistol was found inside the shop of Satya Narayan Prasad.
5. It is also on record that the gun used by Satya Narayan Prasad was a licenced gun and was used in exercise of the right of private defence of person and property. In the said case, it was also recorded by S.I. Ashok Kumar Das (PW-10) who investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet against Bijay Sonar showing Bitten Sonar and his son Rajesh as being dead. In that case also cognizance was taken and on commitment, has been numbered as Sessions trial No. 91 of 1984. It appears that the two cases arising out of the same occurrence, being Jamal Pur P.S. Case Nos. 63 of 1982 and 64 of 1982, were not tried together as per the normal procedure and curiously enough both the cases were tried separately for the reasons best known to the prosecutor. The High Court found contradiction in the depositions of the witnesses and further the prosecution witnesses who had supported the case, were someway related with the deceased. After analyzing the evidence of Vijay Kumar Swarnkar (PW-2) and Tarni Prasad Swarnkar (PW-8), the High Court found that either of them was lying.
6. The High Court also noted that the two independent witnesses (PW-3 & PW-4) have turned hostile. In these circumstances, the High Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses who have supported the prosecution case are interested witnesses and even the I.O. appears to have sided with them and left many links of the chain of events unexplained. Satya Narayan Prasad, Anand and Arun had sustained injuries at the occurrence and it appears that the prosecution failed to explain those injuries, specially, when the defence has taken the plea of private defence.
7. From the facts and the items recovered from the place of occurrence, it is clear that the materials in the shop of Satya Narayan Prasad had been disturbed, the show case glasses were broken and the jewelley items were scattered all over the place. We have further noticed that the glass pieces were found in the shop room from which it is evident that some violent occurrence had taken place in the shop. We have also noticed that the injuries on the two deceased appear to have been sustained from the front side. Therefore, it is to be accepted that firing appears to have taken place from a close range which could only be possible inside the shop room. We have further noticed that the I.O. recovered three empty cartridges from the utensil shop, a black leather chappal of left foot in the jewellery shop and right foot slipper was found near the platform. He also found 12 bore gun loaded with two live cartridges and a bottle of acid. It appears that no explanation has been given by the prosecution with regard to these discrepancies.
8. In our opinion, the High Court correctly assessed the facts in this matter to come to the conclusion of accepting the defence story of Bitten and Rajesh to commit the dacoity in the shop of Satya Narayan Prasad which was more probable than that of the story tried to be placed by Tarni against Satya Narayan, having purchased the house of Ram Ratan only to implicate Satya Narayan Prasad and his sons to take revenge. No other witnesses, who were present at the time of occurrence or after the occurrence, gave their statements before the S.I. We find that there is a missing link to prove the story of the prosecution and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case. The pouring of acid on the body of Bitten also cannot be found to be acceptable on the ground that such blackening may be due to post-mortem straining and there was no corrosion or burning on the dead body of Bitten Sonar. Dr. B.N. Singh (PW-11), who conducted the post-mortem, had also stated that there was no corrosion on the person of Bitten Sonar. In the cross-examination this doctor stated that blackening of the body might have been due to the post-mortem straining.
9. In these circumstances, we find that the High Court has correctly held that the prosecution failed to establish its case on the given facts and the High Court has correctly come to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted them. We do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the judgment and order so passed by the High Court. On the contrary, we feel that the view taken by the High Court is a plausible one and does not require to be interfered with and accordingly we do not find any merit in these appeals. These appeals are dismissed as against the respondents.
———
