Dismissed

Kawish Adman v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Aug 2023B.A./286/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand heard a bail application by a petitioner accused of murder and possession of arms under the Arms Act. The Court examined the admissibility of evidence recovered from a confession made in the Case Diary. Dismissing the appeal, the Court refused bail due to prima facie evidence despite reservations on procedural aspects of seizure.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected; petitioner remains in custody.

Kawish Adman Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 286 of 2023

¶2

Kawish Adman

¶3

------…... …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand .…. …. Opp. Party --------

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶7

-------For the Petitioner : Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, Advocate Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate Mr. Manish Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. S. Kumar, A.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate --------

¶8

10/ Dated 03.08.2023

¶9

Heard the parties.

¶10

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 238 of 2022, registered under Sections 302 & 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27/35 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of Sri Manoj Chandra Jha, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi.

¶11

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of Fardbeyan of the informant Pawan Kumar Arya, alleging therein that on 30.05.2022 at about 1:00 P.M, his father Kamal Bhushan had gone to meet his lawyer Shambhu Choudhary along-with his friend Naresh Kejriwal. Subsequently, he received information that his father was shot dead by co-accused Rahul Kujur and one unknown person.

¶12

Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R nor he has been put on T.I. Parade. It was further submitted that only incriminating evidence against him is confession, leading to recovery of the murder weapon. It was also submitted that the seizure of the firearms, purportedly recovered on his confession, was not in accordance with law as the seizure witnesses were police personals and the seized weapon was not sealed at the place of occurrence. It was further submitted that the

¶13

-2-

¶14

petitioner has remained in custody for about 16 months.

¶15

Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Sahib Singh Vs. State of Punjab , reported in (1996) 11 SC 685 & in Amarjit Singh @ Babbu Vs. State of Punjab , reported in (1995) Supp. (3) SCC 217 and in Narsi Vs. State of Haryana , reported in (1999) 1 SCC 166 in support of the aforesaid submissions.

¶16

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Informant has submitted that the murder weapon was recovered on the basis of confession of the petitioner, at about 2:00 A.M in the morning, from an isolated place and as such, the seizure could not be made in presence of independent witnesses. It was further submitted that the trial is under progress and the prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses.

¶17

The Case diary, earlier called for, has been received. Perused the same.

¶18

It transpires that on 03.06.2022, the petitioner and co-accused Rahul Kujur were arrested from Gazipur Sabji Mandi, East Delhi. The accused persons including the petitioner confessed their guilt. The confession of the petitioner is at paragraph-64 of the case diary, in which, he has disclosed that after committing murder of the deceased Kamal Bhushan, he and co-accused Rahul Kujur went near Kanke Dam and hid the murder weapon in an isolated place, beneath a rock. The petitioner and other accused persons were taken to the place where the firearm was concealed and on their pointing out, a country-made pistol and one live cartridge were recovered. The day and time of the seizure has been shown to be 06.06.2022 at 1:50 A.M. Copy of the seizure of the list was also supplied to co-accused Rahul Kujur and this petitioner. It is true that the seizure witnesses were the members of the raiding party. Seizure was made at about 1:50 A.M. Absence of independent witnesses at such ungodly hour is self-explanatory.

¶19

-3-

¶20

Considering this fact, the seizure made in the presence of the members of the raiding party, will not render the recovery of murder weapon inadmissible in evidence.

¶21

It further appears that the seized weapon was sent for Forensic Examination and from perusal of Forensic Report, it transpires that the bullet of 7.65 mm bore, which was recovered from the dead body of the deceased, was fired from the firearm, so recovered, on the disclosure of this petitioner.

¶22

There is nothing in the case diary to show that the seized firearm was sealed at the place of occurrence. Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the possibility of tampering with the seized firearm cannot be ruled out. No opinion can be formed at this stage regarding the admissibility of this evidence as it will have considerable bearing on the merit of this case. It will be open to the Trial Court to decide the admissibility of this evidence at the time of final decision of the sessions trial.

¶23

Considering the facts that the prima facie disclosure made by the petitioner has led to the recovery of a murdered weapon, along-with the forensic report corroborating the fact that the deceased was shot by the said weapon, I am not inclined to release the petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is hereby, rejected.

¶24

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶25

BS/

Kawish Adman v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kawish Adman v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gopal Kumar Lachhiramka Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Sunder Tibrewal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laxman Chandra Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Catholic Diocess Dudhani Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sunil Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand