The High Court of Jharkhand rejected a bail application filed by two accused persons charged with the murder of four family members. The court held that recovery of blood-stained weapons and the presence of the first applicant during the crime negated the bail plea.
Bail application is rejected; accused to remain in jail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3695 of 2022
.... … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party
-------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------For the Petitioners : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. --------
10/ 11.08.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants- (1) Martom Khandait and (2) Ram Sinku with prayer to release on bail in connection with Hatgamharia P.S. Case No. 31 of 2021, registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the S.D.J.M., Sadar at Chaibasa.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged against unknown person in regard to murder of four persons of the same family with these allegations that on 01.10.2021 in the night informant along with his family members had gone to sleep in their own room. At 9:30 he woke and saw his father Onmo Khandait dead. Injuries was on the neck of his father. Brother of the informant Gobra Khandait was also assaulted on the neck with some sharp edged weapon was also lying in pool of blood. Mother of informant Mani Khandait and son of the informant Basudeo Khandait were also found dead, who were also assaulted on the neck with some sharp edged weapon.
Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that this F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person in regard to murder of four members of the same family and all the four murder were committed in the very house of the informant. Name of the applicants transpired during investigation. Applicant No.1 is the son of one of the deceased Onmo Khandait and Mani Khandait. Applicant No.1 is alleged to confess his guilt and on his confessional statement blood stained axe and blood stained pant and shirt were also recovered which is alleged to be of applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 Ram Sinku had also confessed his guilt and on his confessional statement and pointing out one blood stained Chapar was alleged to be recovered. All the witnesses of recovery memo have turned hostile during examination before the Trial Court and there is no other evidence against the applicants to show their complicity in commission of the alleged offence and they have been languishing in Jail since 03.10.2022.
2
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and contended that in this case four persons of the same family were murdered brutally by assaulting with sharp edged weapon. Blood stained weapons axe and Chapar both were recovered on the confessional statement of each of the applicant and the blood stained cloth of applicant No.1 were also recovered though the applicant No.1 has lodged the F.I.R. and on the fateful night he was present in the very house and four murders of his family were committed on the fateful night at 9:30. Recovery of blood stained cloths and the weapons are the incriminating circumstance against the applicant No.1. So far as the witnesses of the recovery memo, who have turned hostile, is concerned, on the basis of the same applicants are not entitled for bail. More so I.O. is left to be examined. In case of circumstantial evidence I.O. is the star witness to connect the chain of the circumstantial evidence and the blood stained Chapar was also recovered on the pointing out and confessional statement of Ram Sinku. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, this fact was in particular knowledge of the applicant No.1 to explain how homicidal death of four persons of his family was committed as he was very much present in that very house.
In view of the submissions made and materials on record, no case of bail is made out. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
P.K.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused charged with the murder of four family members given the recovery of incriminating weapons and evidence of hostile witness testimony.
Whether the circumstantial evidence and the burden of explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act negate the case for bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Martom Khandait
Ram Sinku
The State of Jharkhand
SUBHASH CHAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
