S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE sole appellant, Ramdeo Singh has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26th May, 1997 passed by Sri D.P. Singh, learned 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial no. 120 of 1994, whereby and whereunder he has been convicted for the offence u/ss. 302/201/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to R/l for life u/s. 302 I.P.C. and R/l for seven years u/s. 201 I.P.C, which are to run concurrently.
(2.) ALTOGETHER six named accused including the appellant were charged u/s. 364 I.P.C. for kidnapping Mithilesh Singh (deceased) and Lalku Ganjhu (deceased). During investigation, after about 45 days of the occurrence, two skeletons were found in a deep forest, stated to be skeletons of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu. Out of six accused, initially four absconded and two of them, namely, Ramdeo Singh (appellant) and Kushaldeo Ganjhu were arrested. They were committed for trial for the charges u/ss. 302/201/34 I.P.C. which were framed against them. During the course of trial, another accused, Kushaldeo Ganjhu, who was on bail, also absconded. The case of sole accused, Ramdeo Singh (appellant) was split up and proceeded separately. The case of prosecution, as per fardbeyan of, Dasarath Singh (P.W. 1), recorded on 27th October, 1993 is that the deceased, Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu had gone to 'Jatra mela ' at Burmu at about 10 A.M. on 26th October, 1993 but they did not return till night. Haying waited up to 10 P.M., the informant and his family members took dinner and slept. In the same night (27th October, 1993) at about 3 A.M., one Birsi Devi (P.W. 3) maid servant of informant came and informed that Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu had gone to her house at about 10 P.M. At that time, she (Birsi Devi) and her sister (Sugia) were in the house. One Basanti and Subhadra of her village also came to her house. At about 11 P.M. in the night, six persons, namely, Mahendra Singh, Ramdeo Singh (Appellant), Karonath Singh, Bhuna @ Bhunua Gorait, Kushaldeo Ganjhu and Bhukhan Pahan suddenly entered in her house and took away Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu with them. The informant further reported that he informed the matter to the villagers and requested them to search but could not get any trace of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu. It was alleged that there was a past enmity with the accused; he (informant) being a contractor, the accused abducted his son with an intention to kill him. In support of their claim, prosecution examined altogether six witnesses. On behalf of defence, two witnesses were also examined, namely, Karma Nath Mahto (D.W. 1) and Bahurau Munda (D.W. 2). One Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, Medical Officer was examined as a Court witness (C.W.). Dasarath Singh, informant (P.W. 1) while supported his fardbeyan, stated that his maid servant, Birsi Devi (P.W. 3) came to his house in the night of 26th October, 1993 and informed that the accused persons have abducted his son, Mithilesh Singh and one Lalku Ganjhu. In the next morning, he went along with brother of Lalku Ganjhu to search for his son in the house of Mahendra Singh but he could not find whereabouts of his son and Lalku Ganjhu. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Burmu police. P.W. 2, Sakur Ansari, a seizure list witness stated that he had no knowledge about the incidence. P.W. 4, Awadhesh Kumar Singh and P.W. 5, Kamlesh Kumar both sons of the informant i.e. brothers of the deceased, who were also seizure list witnesses, supported the story of prosecution regarding disappearance of their brother in the night of 26th October, 1993. In fact, these two witnesses claimed to have identified the deceased, Mithilesh Singh. P.W. 4, Awadhesh Kumar Singh stated that the cap on which 'Big Boy ' was written and a 'Dot pen ' recovered from Baruaghati forest, lying near the skeletons belonged to deceased, Mithilesh Singh. Two skeletons were found at a distance of ten to twelve feet. Kamlesh Kumar (P.W 5), other brother of the deceased, Mithilesh Singh stated that Birsi Devi (P.W. 3), informed that the appellant, Ramdeo Singh with five accused had abducted his brother from her house. In the cross -examination, he admitted that the skeletons were found after 45 days from the date of disappearance of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu. Birsi Devi (P.W. 3) claimed to be sole eye witness of abduction of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu by six accused persons, namely, Mahendra Singh, Ramdeo Singh (Appellant), Karonath Singh, Bhuna @ Bhunua Gorait, Kushaldeo Ganjhu and Bhukhan Pahan. In her testimony, she deposed that on 26th October, 1993, when she was preparing meal, Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu came to her house to see her, as she was unwell. She served food to them and also made them to sleep in one of rooms of her house. At about 11 -12 O 'clock, when she was talking with other girls of neighbourhood, somebody called her name. When she opened the door, found six accused persons, namely, Mahendra Singh, Ramdeo Singh (Appellant), Karonath Singh, Bhuna @ Bhunua Gorait, Kushaldeo Ganjhu and Bhukhan Pahan, who entered in her house. Karonath Singh and Mahendra Singh had gun with them, the accused tied hands of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu and thereafter, carried them towards north in the forest. She rushed to the house of informant (her malik) and informed him about the occurrence. In the cross -examination, she admitted that on the date of occurrence, she was suffering from fever and stated that the deceased, Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu went to her house to see her. She (Birsi Devi) could not explain as to why both the deceased took meal in her house in the night of 26th October, 1993 and they desired to sleep in her house prior to disappearance. It is a settled law that the testimony of a solitary witness, must inspire confidence and should not leave any doubt in the mind of the Court about the truthfulness. In the case of Sadhu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan ', reported in 2003(2) East Cr.C. 183 (S.C.), the Supreme Court observed: "It is no doubt true that the conviction of an accused can be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness. However, in such a case the Court must be satisfied that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of such a witness and that his testimony is so free of blemish that it can be acted upon without insisting upon corroboration. The testimony of the witness must be one, which inspires confidence and leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court about the truthfulness of the witness...."
(3.) IN this case, a solitary witness regarding abduction of Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu is P.W. 3, Birsi Devi. Others, such as informant, Dasarath Singh (P.W. 1) and two of his sons, Awadhesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 4) and Kamlesh Kumar (P.W. 5) are hearsay witnesses, who came to know of such abduction from Birsi Devi (P.W.3). Informant, Dasarath Singh (P.W.1) and his two sons, Awadhesh Kumar Singh (P.W.4) and Kamlesh Kumar (P.W.5) being directly related to deceased, Mithilesh Singh, can be stated to be interested witnesses. One is to keep in mind that the solitary witness, Birsi Devi (P.W. 3) is also maid servant of the house of deceased. There is no evidence brought on record to suggest serious enmity between the informant and accused, Ramdeo Singh or deceased and the accused, Ramdeo Singh or any other accused. Though it was Stated by the informant that he was a contractor but none of the witnesses stated any previous enmity nor shown any motive to abduct Mithilesh Singh and Lalku Ganjhu in order to murder. There is complete absence of exhortation or pre -meditation on the part of the accused.;