Allowed

Ramrai Surin v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Oct 2024Cr.A(DB)/917/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under sections 302/201/34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence: recovery of a blood-stained spade, blood-stained soil, the deceased's mobile phone and motorcycle, and police-recorded confessions. The High Court found recoveries unproved by witnesses, no proof of the deceased's blood group, and unproven confessions, and set aside the conviction.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramrai Surin Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶2

[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence
dated 29.07.2017/31.07.2017, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum Chaibasa in S.T. Case
No.269 of 2013]

¶3

Ramrai Surin, Aged about -40 years, S/o Sitaram Surin,

¶4

Pani Surin, Aged about-30 years, W/o Ramrai Surin

¶5

Both Residents of village-Devabir, P.O. & P.S.-Sonua, District-Singhbhum, West Singhbhum

¶6

.... .... …. Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent

¶9

------

¶10

PRESENT

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶13

-----For the Appellant : Mrs. Alpana Verma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

¶14

------

¶15

CAV On 18/09/2024 Pronounce On 03/ 10/2024

¶16

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

¶17

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and

¶18

order of conviction and sentence of the appellants dated 29.07.2017/31.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum Chaibasa in S.T. Case No.269 of 2013 arising out of Sonua P.S. Case No.42 of 2012, corresponding to

¶19

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶20

¶21

G.R. Case No.354 of 2012 (hereinafter the called the impugned judgment and order), whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under sections 302, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousand) under sections 302/34 of India Penal Code and further rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) for the offence under sections 201/34 of Indian Penal Code with default stipulation.

¶22

FACTUAL MATRIX

¶23

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 02.11.2012, the informant Ram Lal Tanti, who happens to be Chawkidar No.05/2017 was deputed at Bank of India, Govindpur received information from some account holders of the bank that a dead body of an unknown person is lying into the ring well of Dipasai. The informant proceeded to the said place and saw an unknown dead body lying into the well. The informant communicated to the nearest police station then, the police arrived at the place of occurrence and the dead body of the deceased was brought out from the well. There were marks of assault on head, chest and both legs, which were fractured. It appeared that some unknown persons after committing

¶24

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶25

¶26

murder have disposed of the dead body into the well about 4-5 days ago. The inquest report was prepared but no local persons could identify the deceased.

¶27

The Officer-in-Charge of Sonua Police Station, after recording the statement of the informant sent the same for registration of FIR for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. The charge of investigation was given to SubInspector Mahendra Baraik(PW-8) and the confessional statement of the present appellants were recorded by the then Officer-in-Charge of Sonua Police Station namely Suraj Oraon and the seizure list of seized materials were also prepared by him (Ext.3/1,3/2 and 3/3), which were received by Investigating Officer. In the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has examined several witnesses of facts and obtained post-mortem report of the deceased, which was identified by his brother by seeing photographs and he also sent the material exhibits to FSL, Ranchi for chemical examination and obtained the chemical examination report (Ext.6 and 6/1). It was also surfaced during the investigation that the name of the deceased was Motu Tiu, who was under love affairs with the appellant No.2 Pani Surin prior to her marriage with the appellant No.1, but in spite of her marriage,

¶28

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶29

¶30

he continued his affairs with the appellant No.2 and always used to tease her. Due to this reason, both the appellants have killed the deceased by giving spade blows and disposed of his dead body in nearby well. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and one Budhuram Hembrom @ Kendu Hembrom, who had also assisted in disposing the dead body of the deceased.

¶31

In course of the trial, all together 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused persons.

¶32

Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, the following documents have also been marked as exhibits by the prosecution.

¶33

Ext.1:- Signature of Ramlal Tanti on Fardbeyan

¶34

Ext.1/1:-Fardbeyan.

¶35

Ext.1/2:-Registration of Fardbeyan

¶36

Ext.2:-Postmortem report

¶37

Ext.3:-Signature of Ganesh Bandia on Seizure list.

¶38

Ext.3/1:-Seizure list of Kudal with wooden handle

¶39

Ext.3/2:-Seizure-list regarding the seizure of blood stained soil from the south corner of the room of the house of accused Ramrai Surin.

¶40

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶41

¶42

Ext.3/3:-Seizure-list of Mobile

¶43

Ext.3/4:-Seizure-list of Motorcycle

¶44

Ext.3/5:-Signature of Devashish Tiu on seizure-list

¶45

Ext.3/6:-Signature of Sanatan Khandait on seizure-list

¶46

Ext.4:-Formal F.I.R.

¶47

Ext.5:-Confessional statement of Ramrai Surin @ Sachin @ Chin

¶48

Ext.5/1:-Confessional statement of Pani Surin.

¶49

Ext.5/2:-Confessional statement of Budhram @ Kendo Hembrom

¶50

Ext.6:-S.F.S.L. Report No.562/13, dated 31.01.2014

¶51

Ext.6/1:-S.F.S.L. Report No. 562/13 dated 19.02.2014

¶52

Ext.7:-Inquest report.

¶53

Mark “X” for identification:- Photo copy of inquest report.

¶54

The accused persons in their respective statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C have denied the commission of offence and pleaded their innocence, however, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

¶55

The learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record held the present appellants guilty and sentenced them as stated above and one co-accused, Budhuram

¶56

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶57

¶58

Hembrom @ Kendu Hembrom was extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charge leveled against him.

¶59

The learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment and order has vehemently argued that the entire prosecution story hinges on some scanty circumstances deliberately concocted by some inimical witnesses with a view to falsely implicate the appellants. Admittedly, there is no eyewitnesses of the occurrence and the entire recovery of the weapon of offence or blood stained mud or the mobile phone are not connected at all with this case to conclusively prove the guilt of the appellants. The alleged seized spade was found full of brownish rust and the blood-stained mud was also not collected in the presence of the appellants. The most suspicious thing is that although both the material exhibits are shown to be containing human blood “B” group but there is no evidence at all that the blood group of the deceased was also “B”.

¶60

It is further argued that from the facts proved by the prosecution witnesses itself, it is crystal clear that all the recoveries were made by the witnesses themselves without any disclosure statement of the accused persons and after recovery of the aforesaid articles, forcible confessional statement of the appellants were recorded by the then Officer-

¶61

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶62

¶63

in-Charge, Sonua Police Station namely Suraj Oraon. The said Officer-in-Charge has not been examined as a witness in this case. Hence, defense has been seriously prejudiced to illicit the material under what circumstances their confessional statements were recorded by him and how the recovery was relevant under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer of this case namely Mahendra Baraik(PW-8) has also failed to prove that the seized mobile phone of this case belonged to the deceased and on whose identification of the place, the said mobile phone was recovered. The learned trial court has absolutely failed to apply its judicial mind towards the glaring incriminating facts and circumstances against the appellants, which have not been proved in accordance with law and could not be made basis of their conviction. The whole approach of the trial court is beyond the weight of the evidence and cardinal principle of law of evidence has been ignored. The appellants are innocent, have committed no offence at all and deserve to be acquitted extending benefit of reasonable doubt by setting aside their conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.

¶64

Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State controverting the aforesaid point of arguments raised

¶65

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶66

¶67

on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered over all evidences available on record and arrived at right conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it is obvious that the kudal (spade) used in committing the murder of the deceased by the present appellants was recovered from the pond situated in front of their own house. The proof of blood stains both on spade as well as mud stained blood has been found of human origin of same blood group “B” also fortifies the commission of offence by the appellants and none else. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants calling for any interference, there is no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.

¶68

It appears that the learned trial court after scrutinizing the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record, confessional statement of the appellants, alleged recovery of incriminating articles and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi showing presence of blood stains over the seized kudal(spade) and blood-stained soil, which contains blood group “B” of human origin and the mobile phone

¶69

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶70

¶71

allegedly belonging to deceased, arrived at irresistible conclusion that it is none else but the appellants, who are author of the murder of the deceased. The learned trial court also relied upon the confessional statement of present appellants marked as Ext.5 and 5/1 respectively leading to discovery of weapon used in the commission of offence. The blood stained soil, motorcycle of the deceased and his mobile phone were also considered relevant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, there is no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has successfully bring home the charges leveled against the accused namely Ramrai Surin and Pani Surin beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, convicted and sentenced them.

¶72

The question before us for consideration is that as to whether the reliance placed upon the aforesaid circumstantial evidence by the prosecution and acted upon by the trial court is legally sustainable or not?

¶73

Prosecution has examined altogether 11 witnesses in this case:

¶74

PW-1, Sri Pitamber Surin and P.W.2, Sri Meghnath

¶75

Khandai have expressed no knowledge about the occurrence of this case and also denied any statement before the

¶76

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶77

¶78

Investigating Officer, as such declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶79

P.W.3, Sri Ramlal Tati is the informant of this case,

¶80

who has simply stated that on 02.11.2012, while he was in duty at Govindpur, branch of Bank of India, one account holder informed about a dead body lying in a well near Dipasai ring. Then, he informed the police and the dead body of unknown person was recovered from the well and except the above facts, he knows nothing.

¶81

P.W.4, Dr. Mahavir Prasad Gopalika, has conducted

¶82

the autopsy on dead body of the unknown deceased on 03.11.2012, and found following:

¶83

(i) Rigor mortis absent, body decomposed, foul smelling and maggots present.

¶84

(ii) Face swollen eyes closed,

¶85

(iii) Lacerated wound near left eye and left and right temporal area of head. Fracture of skull bone, fracture of both knee joints.

¶86

Internal Examination:-

¶87

(i) Heart right blood, left empty

¶88

(ii) Lungs liver spleen and kidney pale

¶89

(iii) Stomach empty, bladder empty.

¶90

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶91

¶92

Cause of death:-

¶93

(i) Haemorrhage and shock due to head injury and knee joint injury.

¶94

Time since death:- Within 4-5 days.

¶95

The post-mortem report is marked as Ext.2.

¶96

P.W.5 Sri Bihari Surin is a hearsay witness and disclosed that he heard from some villagers that someone has been murdered by the accused Ramrai Surin and a motorcycle was also found in the pond but he has no personal knowledge about the occurrence.

¶97

P.W.6 Sri Gunaram Surin has also heard about the murder of an unknown person in his village but does not know about the incident and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. He has also denied any statement before the police recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC.

¶98

P.W.7 Sri Ganesh Bandia is a resident of another

¶99

village Gondasai. According to his evidence, he came to know from Devashish Tiu (PW-9) that his uncle Motu Tiu has been murdered in the house of accused Ramrai Surin and the motorcycle of the deceased was found in the pond. He does not know from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. This witness along with Devashish Tiu(PW-9) went

¶100

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶101

¶102

to village Devabir on 17.12.2013 and further states that on identification of the accused Pani Surin, they went to the house of the accused Ramrai Surin and from the courtyard of the accused persons, a mobile phone of LG company was recovered from a pit and seizure list was prepared in presence of this witness and Devashish Tiu. Except the above facts, he knows nothing about the occurrence.

¶103

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that Devashish Tiu is the son of his Phuffu.

¶104

P.W.9 Sri Devashish Tiu has also stated about the recovery of mobile phone from the courtyard of accused persons at the instance of the accused Pani Surin and he has also signed on the seizure list prepared by the police. Except recovery of the mobile phone, he has stated nothing about the incident rather he admits that the deceased was his uncle, who was murdered.

¶105

In his cross examination, this witness admits that he was never interrogated by the police in connection with this case and his village is situated at a distance of 40-50 kms away

¶106

from the place of occurrence. There is no other material in his evidence.

¶107

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶108

¶109

P.W.10 Santan Khandait is a local villager, who has

¶110

proved his signature on seizure list of iron spade but he has specifically declined any recovery before him. This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and in his crossexamination, also reiterates that the above iron spade was not recovered in his presence at the instance of accused persons. His signature was taken on the seizure list at police station.

¶111

P.W.11 Sri Man Singh Kora has also denied any recovery of iron spade from the pond situated in front of the house of the accused Ramrai Surin and he has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶112

P.W.8 Mahendra Baraik (Sub-Inspector) the

¶113

Investigating Officer of this case has proved the fardbayan of Ramlal Tanti in the handwriting of then Officer-in-Charge Suraj Oraon as Ext.1/1, endorsement for registration of the case as Ext.1/2 and Formal FIR signed by the then Officer-inCharge as Ext.4. He has further deposed that the confessional statement of the accused Ramrai Surin @ Sachin @ Chin and Pani Surin were recorded by then Officer-in-Charge Suraj Oraon, which are marked as Ext.5, 5/1 respectively. This witness has recorded the confessional statement of accused

¶114

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018 13

¶115

Budhram Hembrom @ Kendu Hembrom, which is marked as Ext.5/2 with objection.

¶116

He has also stated that in connection of this case, three seizure lists have been prepared, out of which two seizure lists have been written and signed by him and one by the then Officer-in-Charge namely Suraj Oraon. He has signed over three seizure lists marked as Ext. 3/1, 3/2 and 3/3 and fourth seizure list was prepared by the then Officer-in-Charge Suraj Oraon marked as Ext.3/4. He has prepared inquest report of the unknown deceased and carbon copy of which has been marked as “X” for identification. He has further deposed that on 02.11.2012, he received the charge of investigation from the then Officer-in-Charge Suraj Oraon in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No.42 of 2012 registered for offence under sections and 302, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code dated 02.11.2012. After receiving the charge of investigation, he recorded fardbayan of the informant and inquest report in the case diary. He recorded restatement of the informant namely Ramlal Tanti and witnesses Motai Bodra, Pitamber Surin and Bihari Surin.

¶117

He found clue from the witness Pitambar Surin(PW-1) and the restatement of Meghnath Khandait (PW-2) that after some days of the recovery of the unknown dead body, he went

¶118

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶119

¶120

to take bath in the pond of Madhusudan Surin, wherein a motorcycle was found and seized by the police, which belongs to one Motu Tiu @ Gonu. Thereafter, he came to know that Motu Tiu was murdered and his dead body was thrown by the accused persons Ramrai Surin and his wife Pani Surin due to illicit relationship between the deceased and Pani Surin. He also came to know that the murder of the Motu Tiu was committed in the house of Ramrai Surin and his wife Pani Surin by causing injury through spade and the dead body was disposed of with assistance of Budhuram Hembrom @ Kendu Hembrom in the ring well of Dipasai. It was also disclosed that the accused persons scratched the wall of their house stained with blood of the deceased and also buried his mobile phone in front of their house.

¶121

The above materials were recovered by the police and both the accused persons were arrested. This witness has also inspected both the place of occurrence, first is the house of accused persons, the mud wall was found scratched in the corner. There was a room towards south wherein the deceased was murdered and the side wall of the room was scratched and mud floor was also scratched by spade. Towards the north side of the wall, there was a private pond of the accused

¶122

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶123

¶124

persons. He also visited second place of occurrence where the dead body of Motu Tiu was found at Dipasai ring well. The well was belonging to the deceased and nearby his landed property was also situated, which is a very lonely place. Thereafter, this witness conducted a raid at the house of accused Ramrai Surin for his arrest but he was not found and sketch map of the place of occurrence was prepared .

¶125

In course of investigation, he prepared the seizure list of Bajaj Discover Motorcycle bearing Reg. No. JH-06B-8052 belonging to the deceased in the presence of witnesses Mamta Surin and Prempratap Boipai at the place of the occurrence. At the first place of occurrence, the minor sons of the accused Ramrai Surin namely Ashok Surin and Sukhram Surin aged about 8 and 6 years respectively disclosed that the blood stained marks on the wall was scratched by their mother Pani Surin. On that basis, blood stained soil was recovered and seizure list was prepared. Thereafter, on 17.12.2012 during the course of raid at village Devabir, the accused Ramrai Surin was arrested and his arrest memo was prepared in the presence of witnesses. The confessional statement of accused namely Ramrai Surin and Pani Surin were recorded, who confessed their guilt that they have caused death of the deceased by causing injury by spade

¶126

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶127

¶128

which has been thrown in the pond situated in front of their

¶129

house. Thereafter the spade was recovered from the pond fitted with wood handle from the said pond and the seizure list was prepared. Both the accused persons have also disclosed that the mobile phone of the deceased has also been buried in the courtyard, which was also recovered and seized in the presence of witnesses Ganesh Bandia and Devashish Tiu, however, the mobile phone was not containing any SIM Card. The blood stained soil and the spade were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, he has submitted chargesheet against the accused persons for the offences under sections 302, 201 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶130

From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is crystal clear that none of the seizure list witnesses of alleged spade and mobile phone of the deceased have been able to prove that the said recovery was made in their presence. The Investigating Officer of this case (P.W.8) has also failed to state as to how the spade used in this case, was recovered from the pond. In the F.S.L. report (Ext.6 & 6/1), the said spade is shown as partly broken but the same has not been mentioned in the seizure list. It further appears that the blood stained

¶131

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶132

¶133

mud was also collected prior to the recording of confessional statement of the appellants. The mobile phone alleged to belong to the deceased was not containing any SIM Card and there is no investigation as to whether it was of the deceased or any other else. We further find that the confessional statement of the appellants have been recorded by the police after their arrest but the same has not been proved and marked as exhibits so as to apply Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. The totality of the circumstances clearly shows that nothing has been recovered in this case in pursuance of confessional statement of the appellants rather everything was recorded prior to arrest of the appellants by the police with assistance of some witnesses, who have been turned hostile during trial.

¶134

We further find that learned trial court has failed to apply its judicial mind towards the relevancy of incriminating materials allegedly seized in this case like bloodstained spade, bloodstained mud, mobile phone and motorcycle of the deceased. There is no evidence at all that the blood group of the deceased was “B”. The prosecution has also failed to prove any ill-will or motive of the appellants to commit murder of the deceased. The case is based on circumstantial evidence but the circumstances evidence relied upon by the prosecution

¶135

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶136

¶137

have no tendency to conclusively point towards the guilt of the appellants.

¶138

In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, we find merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed.

¶139

Appellant No.1 Ramrai Surin is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶140

Appellant No.2 Pani Surin is on bail and discharged from liability of bail bond.

¶141

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.

¶142

Let the copy of this judgment along with record of trial court

¶143

be sent back for information and needful.

¶144

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶145

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶146

Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 3/10/2024 Pappu/- A.F.R.

¶147

Cr.A(D.B.) No.917 of 2018

¶148

Ramrai Surin v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramrai Surin v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamlal Soren And Ors. Vs State

Pankaj Kumar Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand

Lakhi Narayan Murmu Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Chandan Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madhuri Vs Madan Lal

Jahangir Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand