BHAGWAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned judgment and order dated 24.12.2005 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Ranchi in S.T. No. 499 of 2003 {R.C. Case No. 6(S)/2001(D)} "State of Jharkhand (through C.B.I.) v. Sri Bhagwan Prasad'" the Appellant before us has been convicted Under Section 302/201 IPC. He has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/-u/s 302 IPC, and a further simple imprisonment for one month in default of payment of the fine. The sentence awarded Under Section 201 I.P.C. is two years R.I. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) We have heard Sri B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate assisted by M/s C.P. Kiran, Nutan Sharma and Naveen Kumar Jaiswal Advocates appearing for the Appellant and Sri Mokhtar Khan, the learned A.S.G.I. representing the C.B.I., at great length over several days. Both sides have also given written submissions and cited a plethora of case law, much of which is either not applicable or not necessary on the facts of the present case. There is no eye witness. The case is based purely on circumstantial evidence. We therefore proceed to examine the prosecution case and evidence in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of "Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar" reported in,2004 SCC 1167 which is as follows:

(3.) Factually, the prosecution came to the Court with the allegations that the Appellant Bhagwan Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who on the date of occurrence was posted as the police officer-in-charge of Doranda police station in the city of Ranchi, had a love affair with the deceased Ms. Ranjana Palit (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) . Later, the accused wanted to get rid of the deceased because the deceased had become pregnant from the accused and she was insisting on marriage. The accused already had a wife and children, and in any case had subsequently got involved with another lady called Venu Karmkar, and had lost interest in the deceased for the past about seven months. Because of this motive, in a pre-planned manner the accused telephoned the deceased on her residential landline at about 5.30 p.m. on 21.10.1998 which was the Diwali day of that year, asking her to come to the accused so that the two could get married. The deceased dressed up fancily like a bride and put on a lot of ornaments and left her house between 5.30 and 5.45 p.m. At 5.45 p.m. the accused again telephoned at the residence of the deceased and was told by the maid-servant P.W 18 that the deceased had already left. Between 6.00 and 6.30 p.m. on that day the accused made an excuse that his service revolver was not working efficiently and borrowed the service revolver of his colleague PW-24 Rang Nath Sharma. Thereafter, from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. the accused and the deceased went together to a restaurant called Ellora Hotel where they dined and had liquor. In the restaurant they were seen by PW-12 and PW-36. From 9.00 p.m. to 2.00 a.m. on the night between 21st and 22nd October 1998, the accused was busy at his police station, at the Chutia police station and at one Kali Pandal at Mohalla Doranda where raids were being conducted by him along with other policemen of the Doranda and Chutia police stations. {There has been an attempt by the prosecution to dispute this engagement of the accused between 9 p.m. and 2 a.m. by P.W 42 Shashi Bhsham Singh saying that there is no such entry at Chutia police station and also the deposition of the S.P. Tadasha Mishra P.W.43 who said that she had not authorized the accused for the activity outside the territory of his police station; but as against we have the deposition of the prosecutions important witness namely P.W. 24 Rang Nath Sharma who deposes about such activity in which he was also a participant, and his deposition finds corroboration from the paragraph 2 of the deposition of P.W. 33 Saroja Nand Jha}. To continue with the prosecution case, between 3.00 and 4.00 a.m. the accused, along with deceased and two other persons went on his maruti van to his official quarter where they were seen by PW-39 Ganesh Prasad Jha. At about 6.00 a.m. the body of the deceased was noticed burning at a secluded place near christian graveyard (hereinafter referred to as the place of occurrence). At about 6.30 a.m. P.W. 9 Nand Lal Prasad, a police-man of Hatia Police Station, on being informed, came to the place of occurrence. The fire was extinguished, and the body of the deceased was found in a badly burnt condition. The identity of the deceased could not be ascertained. Oil like substance was allegedly found near the body, meaning thereby that the body of the deceased has been doused with oil and set on fire. No sample of oil or oil stained soil was collected from the place of occurrence. At about 7.00 a.m. the inquest report (Exhibit-5) was prepared and the body was sent for post mortem. A bullet is alleged to have been found near the dead body, of which a seizure memo (carbon copy of which is Exhibit 12/1) was prepared at the same time ie. 7 a.m. It may be pointed out here that in the inquest report there is no mention of any fire arm injury on the dead body. Further, although there is a specific column (No. 7) in the format of the inquest report which relates to items found near the dead body, but there is no mention in that column or elsewhere in the inquest report about any bullet having been found. Also, though a the site plan (Exhibit-26) of the place of occurrence was prepared at the same time i.e. 7 a.m., but there is no mention or mark of any spot in that site plan showing any spot near the dead body from where the bullet is said to have been recovered. A fardbeyan (Exhibit-8) of PW-6 Devendra Nayak, watchman was recorded at the place of occurrence at 7 a.m., on the basis of which a criminal case was registered against unknown accused. There is also no mention of the bullet in the said fardbeyan athough all other details and items have been mentioned.