DEO KRISHNA PRASAD @ LALOO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARPAN Mukherjee @ Jay, 11 years old school boy came home from school in the afternoon of 9.10.2001. At about 4.00 PM on the same day, he left home telling his mother that he was going to the house of his friend Sunil Das nearby and would return within ten minutes, but the boy did not return. About 5.30 PM his friend Sunil Das came to the house of Arpan asking Arpan's mother regarding the whereabouts of Arpan. The mother replied that her son had gone to his (Sunil's) house. Thereafter, Sunil Das went away. A few moments later, Arpan's mother Sujata Mukherjee (PW8) found an envelope containing a letter lying on the ground near the gate of her house. She gave the letter to her husband, who had by then returned home from work. On reading the letter, father of the boy namely Sameer Kumar Mukherjee (PW9) realized that it was a threatening letter containing demand for ransom money and that his son Arpan has been kidnapped by some criminals. A demand for a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs was made in the letter and the same was ordered to be kept near the electric pole located near the house of one Madan Mohan Prasad by 8.00 PM. The letter also warned not to inform the police. The father of the boy Sameer Kumar Mukherjee along with his neighbouring residents namely Sanjay Kumar Mandal (PW4) and Rajesh Periwal (PW) went in search of Arpan to the house of Sunil Das, but Sunil Das was not available in his house. His father informed that Prakash Das and Amit Gupta (both friends of Sunil Das) had come to call Sunil Das and the three of them had gone together and have not returned home. Sameer Kumar Mukherjee and others thereafter proceeded to the house of Prakash Das, but he was also not found at his house. While returning, they saw Prakash Das, Amit Gupta and Rajesh Periwal entering into the house of the appellant Deo Krishna Prasad @ Laloo (appellant). When despite such, Arpan was not traced out, his father accompanied by Santosh Kumar Maheshwari (PW6), Hiramani Jha (PW7) and Dilip Periwal (PW5) went to the residence of the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar and on being informed that the police officer is out of Station, they came to the house of Dy. S.P. who directed them to go to the police station and lodge a complaint. Accordingly, a written report was lodged by Arpan's father Sameer Kumar Mukherjee (PW9) at the Police Station along with the ransom letter received by him. Initially, no suspicion was raised against anybody. Sunil Das and Arpan were friends from the time when the two families lived in different portions of a rented house within the same mohalla and after Arpan's father had constructed his own house, his family shifted to the new house. On returning home, the informant found several persons waiting at his house including one Jago Devi (PW2) who informed that she had seen Sunil Das dropping a letter at the gate of his house. The informant and others went again in search of Arpan and in course of his search, they were informed by one Suresh Ram (PW1) that he had seen Arpan and Sunil going together in the alley of Dr. Raman Kumar and that he had seen Prakash Das, Amit Gupta, Rajendra Thakur and Deo Krishna Prasad @ Laloo (appellant) waiting in the alley. When the informant proceeded to the house of Deo Krishna Prasad, he saw Rajendra Thakur and Amit Gupta from some distance and thereafter, all of them including Sunil Das hurriedly entered into the house of Deo Krishna Prasad. On this information, the informant proceeded to the house of Deo Krishna Prasad. However, no information regarding the whereabouts of Arpan could be obtained during the night and even till the next day and, therefore, in compliance of the demand contained in the ransom note, a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs kept in a bag was placed near the electric pole at about 8.00 PM. A watch was kept at a distance to see as to who would come to receive the bag, but when nobody arrived there, the informant along with the police returned. On the next morning i.e. on 11.10.2001 at about 6.30 -7.00 AM Sunil Das and Deo Krishna Prasad were seen in the custody of the police proceeding along the alley of Dr. Raman Kumar. The informant and other witnesses followed them. They came to a dilapidated house located near the house of Deo Krishna Prasad. The lock on the gate of the house was broken open and on entering the house, the dead body of Arpan was found lying by the side of the wall and his slippers were also seen lying nearby and there were marks of injury on the neck of the dead body. After obtaining photographs of the dead body and after completing inquest, police forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination.

(2.) ON the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the investigating officer against Sunil Das, Amit Gupta, Prakash Das, Rajendra Thakur and Deo Krishna Prasad, cognizance for the offences under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC was taken by the learned court below against the accused persons including the appellant. Since the accused persons namely Sunil Das, Amit Gupta and Prakash Das were found to be juveniles, their cases were separated from the case of this appellant and another accused and they were forwarded to the Juvenile Court for trial. The remaining two accused persons Rajendra Thakur and Deo Krishna Prasad faced trial before the court of Sessions Judge, Deoghar and vide impugned judgment of conviction, the learned trial court convicted the present appellant Deo Krishna Prasad @ Laloo for all the aforesaid offences namely offences under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and imposed sentence of life imprisonment for major offences. However, the accused Rajendra Thakur was acquitted from the charges in respect of the aforesaid offences on the basis of benefit of doubt. While convict Deo Krishna Prasad has preferred the present appeal, the informant has preferred revision application against the order of acquittal of co -accused Rajendra Thakur before this Court vide Cr. Revision No. 1043 of 2003. Even though both the cases arise out of the same impugned judgment of the trial court, both the cases will be disposed of by separate orders.

(3.) AT the trial, as many as 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the informant (PW9), his wife (PW8), doctors who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased (PW11, PW12 and PW14) and the investigating officer (PW13).