GANPAT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Namkum P.S. Case No. 18 of 2007 was registered on 14/2/2007 under Sec. 363/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short. IPC) against Rajesh Prajapati and Deepu Prajapati. In his written complaint dtd. 14/2/2007, Rajendra Kumar raised a suspicion against Rajesh Prajapati and Deepu Prajapati with whom he was litigating a land dispute in the Court that they have abducted Prashant Kumar, his son, due to enmity. In course of the investigation a friend of Prashant Kumar disclosed that in the evening of 13/2/2007 he had seen Prashant Kumar in the company of unknown persons and Anil Gupta told the police that around that time he had found Monti and Ganpat Kumar moving with an unknown boy on a bicycle with a bag. On the basis of the informations collected from several persons the police zeroed in on Ganpat Kumar who when interrogated by the police confessed his crime and suffered a disclosure statement. At his pointing the dead body of Prashant Kumar and crime articles which were concealed inside the ground were dug out in presence of the Magistrate. The offences under Sec. 364 and 302 IPC were therefore added in the report. Monti was not apprehended and has remained absconding. A charge-sheet was laid against Ganpat Kumar after the investigation and he has faced the trial on the charge framed under Sec. 363, 364, 302 and 201 IPC. In the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 22 witnesses who have tendered evidence, primarily circumstantial evidence, which was found sufficient by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No. VI, Ranchi to convict the appellant under Sec. 364-A/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to RI for life with a fine of Rs.10,000.00 both under Sec. 302/34 and 364-A/34 IPC with a default stipulation that he would undergo further imprisonment for two years in default of payment of the fine amount, on each count. He has been further sentenced to RI for seven years with a fine of Rs.5,000.00 under Sec. 201/34 IPC with a default stipulation to undergo further imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The judgment of conviction of the appellant passed in Sessions Trial No. 460 of 2007 has been assailed by Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, on the grounds that the incriminating circumstances sought to be established by the prosecution against the appellant were not proved by cogent evidence; the circumstances in the broken chain of circumstances do not form together a firm foundation for conviction and; the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of his so-called confessional statement which was extracted by force.

(3.) The case of the prosecution against the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence. The guiding principles on the circumstantial evidence which originated in "Reg v. Hodge" (1838) 2 Lew. 227 , 168 ER 1136 is that before convicting a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence the Court must be satisfied not only that the evidence is consistent with the guilt of the person but is also inconsistent with any other rational inference pointing to innocence of the accused. This rule of evidence which is known as Hodge rule is firmly ingrained in the criminal justice system in India. In "Bodhraj @ Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir" (2002) 8 SCC 45 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no doubt that conviction can be passed solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of the law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court (reference is of Hon'ble Supreme Court) as far back as in 1952 (this has reference to "Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh" AIR 1952 SC 343). Soon after "Hanumant Govind Nargundkar", in "Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab" AIR 1954 SC 621 the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from the circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate innocence of the accused and bring home the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. Since then, the opinion in "Hodge" case has been consistently applied by the Courts in India in evaluating the circumstantial evidence tendered against a person accused of a crime.