MANOJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, under Ss. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dtd. 20/9/2001 and order of sentence dated 24.09.2001passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, Vth(C.B.I.), Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 641 of 1998 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 42 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant, namely, Manoj Kumar Singh has been convicted under Ss. 120B, 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and has been directed to undergo imprisonment for life under Ss. 302 and 120B of I.P.C. on each count as also has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5000.00 each and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment of one year for offence under Sec. 201 of I.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the FIR, reads as under: Prem Kishore Khandelwal, Bahnoi (brother-in-law) of Rakesh Khandelwal, informant, had come to Ranchi on 9/4/1998. It is said that Prem Kishore Khandelwal reached Ranchi in the evening of 9/4/1998 and visited the shop of Bishwanath Khandelwal, where he met Mukesh Khandelwal s/o Bishwanath Khandelwa, who put him up in his house at Neori. It is stated that Mukesh Khandelwal assured the payment of the dues to Prem Kishore Khandelwal. That Prem Kishore Khandelwal's wife telephoned from Burdwan and she was informed that her husband had reached Ranchi and he would leave for Burdwan on 10/4/1998. Prem Kishore Khandelwal didn't return to Burdwan on the stipulated date. As such the informant came to Ranchi on 12/4/1998, where he met Mukesh Khandelwal, who informed him that heavy amount has been paid to Prem Kishore Khandelwal and thereafter Prem Kishore Khandelwal had left for Burdwan. The informant has further stated that he demanded the receipt of payment of money from Mukesh Khandelwal, who didn't produce any receipt and gave evasive reply. It is also alleged that Mukesh Khandelwal adopted a non-co-operative attitude which was suggestive of the fact that Mukesh and his father Bishwanath Khandelwal under a pre-planned conspiracy, so as to escape the liability to pay outstanding amount had caused the death of Prem Kishore Khandelwal. The informant expressed his surprise that Bishwanath Khandelwal had knowledge about the coming of Prem Kishore Khandelwal for realization of the due amount and surprisingly Bishwanath Khandelwal had gone to Hardwar on 5/4/1998 after handing over such a huge amount to his son and daughter.

(3.) On the basis of the said written report, Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No.42 of 1998 dtd. 14/4/1998 was lodged under Ss. 364, 365 and 120B of I.P.A. and the investigating agency on registration of FIR has commenced the investigation but in course of investigation when the dead body of the deceased was recovered in Sikidiri, Sikidiri P.S. Case No. 10 of 1998 was instituted and after identification of the dead body, the said case was amalgamated with this case and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons including the appellant. The charges have been farmed and thereafter the trial commenced and in course thereof, altogether 12 witnesses have been examined and after recording the statements of the accused persons under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C., the learned trial court has found the charge proved against the appellant beyond all shadow of doubt and accordingly, passed the order of conviction against him for charges under Ss. 120B, 302, 201 of I.P.C., against which, the instant appeal has been filed on the ground that it is a case where the conviction is based upon the circumstantial evidence by applying the principle as laid down under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act but the basic requirement for proving the charge on the basis of the confession leading to recovery is not available even if the testimony of the witnesses had been considered in entirety.