KALURAM GUJAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr. Appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.05.2004 & 24.05.2004 respectively passed by the Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in connection with S.T. No. 115 of 1994, corresponding to G.R. No. 1292/1992, arising out of Parsudih (Sunder Nagar) P.S. Case No. 71/1992 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

(2.) The facts appearing from the fardbeyan of Ram Chandra Choudhary recorded on 12.05.1992 at 5:00 hours at the residence of Fulchand Sharma situated within Sunder Nagar P.S., Jamshedpur is that on 12.05.1992 in the morning at 4 a.m. appellant -Kaluram Gujar informed that Ram Narayan Sharma and Mahaveer Sharma have been done to death by unknown miscreants. It is disclosed that the occurrence took place in the house of Fulchand Sharma situated within Sunder Nagar Police Station. On the date of occurrence Fulchand Sharma (owner of the house) had gone to his native village situated within the State of Rajasthan and he had left the deceased Mahaveer Sharma and Ram Narayan Sharma to look after the house. The appellant was working under Fulchand Sharma and he was also residing in that very house. After receiving information regarding murder of Ram Narayan Sharma and Mahaveer Sharma, the informant rushed to the place and found the dead body of Mahaveer Sharma lying in a room on the ground floor whereas dead body of Ram Narayan Sharma was lying in a room on the first floor. The informant inspected the entire house of Fulchand Sharma but he did not find access of any outsider in the house. According to informant only three persons were present in that very house during that fateful night and those three persons were appellant -Kaluram Gujar, deceased Ram Narayan Sharma and Mahaveer Sharma. The informant repeatedly enquired from the appellant as to what happened in the house or how the occurrence took place but no cogent information was given by him. The matter was reported to the Police, fardbeyan of informant -Ram Chandra Choudhary was recorded and a case being Parsudih (Sunder Nagar) P.S. Case No. 71/1992, under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown was registered.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that no direct evidence against the appellant is available but the learned Sessions Judge considering the circumstantial evidence available, has held him guilty. Circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution are not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. Learned Sessions Judge has considered the statement of P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 and held that the appellant was residing in that very house along with the deceased and he was present in the house on that fateful night. P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 have stated in their deposition that house in question where the alleged murder of two persons had taken place belongs to one Fulchand Sharma who had gone to his native village situated within the State of Rajasthan to arrange marriage of his son. Fulchand Sharma had entrusted the deceased and the appellant to look after the house and, therefore, they were residing in that very house. P.W. 2 is distant relative of Fulchand Sharma whereas P.W. 5 happens to be close friend. It is also disclosed by the informant that Fulchand Sharma's native village is situated near the native village of informant and they are acquainted with each other from before. It is contended that P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 had no occasion to speak that on that unfortunate night house of Fulchand Sharma was occupied by two deceased and the appellant. Information given by P.W. 5 in the fardbeyan and also in the Court derived to him from the mouth of appellant but the appellant did not admit the aforesaid fact. Confession made before the police cannot be accepted and relied upon in the eye of law.