Disposed
Pankaj Sah v. The State Of Bihar
Patna HCCR. MISC./20256/2014
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.20256 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2 Year- 2014 Thana -DANDARI District- BEGUSARAI
====================================================== PANKAJ SAH SON OF SITA RAM SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGETETRI, P.S- DARDARI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI.
.... .... PETITIONER/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Amiya Kunal, Adv. For the Informant : Mr. Shashidhar Jha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Madan Kumar, Addl. P.P. Incharge
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER
4 12-08-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the informant.
Shankar Sah, father of deceased Mukesh Sah had filed written report disclosing therein that Dharam Sah and Pankaj Sah (Petitioner) took away Mukesh Sah at about 01:00 P.M. over motorcycle bearing registration no.BR-9E 8563 and since thereafter, Mukesh Sah did not return. However, Dharam Sah and Pankaj Sah met. On query they disclosed that Mukesh Sah had gone to his Sasural which was also found false. During course of search he had also came to know that after consuming wine,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20256 of 2014 (4) dt.12-08-2014
2
they both took away Mukesh Sah over motorcycle and so apprehended his death at the hands of accused.
It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that even considering that there happens to be evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation including that of written report that petitioner and Dharam Sah had taken away deceased Mukesh Sah and on account thereof, it happens to be a case of last seen in the background that there happens to be absence of direct evidence. In terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act petitioner had explained by way of his so-called extra judicial confessional statement recorded by the police under para-12 of the case diary. The learned counsel further stated that after apprehension of Dharam Sah he had elaborately detailed the occurrence under the banner of inculpatory extra judicial confessional statement and also disclosed the place where they have concealed the dead body as is evident from para-11 whereupon the dead body was taken out as is evident from para-14 of the case diary. So submitted that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20256 of 2014 (4) dt.12-08-2014
3
before having the extra judicial confessional statement of petitioner, the Investigating Officer was well aware with regard to manner of occurrence as well as the place where the dead body was concealed on account of inculpatory confessional statement of Dharam Sah therefore incorporation of the fact under para-14 of the case diary that the dead body was taken out as pointed out jointly by the apprehended accused Dharam Sah as well as Pankaj Sah happens to be inadmissible in true sense of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Excluding the same, there happens to be no other material. Furthermore, the witnesses under para-25 and 26 of the case diary have also clarified the issue stating clearly that the dead body was recovered at the disclosure made by Dharam Sah. So submitted that petitioner is entitled for bail.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the informant submitted that the extra judicial confessional statement of an accused is not admissible in terms of Section 24, 25 of the Evidence
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20256 of 2014 (4) dt.12-08-2014
4
Act and on account thereof, the explanation whatsoever been stated by the petitioner is nonacceptable, non-appreciable in the eye of law. It has also been submitted that inculpatory extra judicial confessional statement of Dharam Sah for the present is admissible only to the extent of recovery of dead body in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and that could be considered in the background of having company of deceased by both of accused as well as Section 30 of the Evidence Act and since thereafter, the deceased found missing till recovery of the dead body excluding the extra judicial confession of petitioner, there happens to be unexplained theme of last seen. Therefore, there happens to be concrete evidence on the last seen theory. As such, prayer for bail of the petitioner is presently rejected.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
PN/-
U T
PANKAJ SAH
THE STATE OF BIHAR
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court