Raju Manjhi vs The State Of Bihar

2. Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2018.08.02 Briefly stated, the facts of the case as culled out from the case 16:44:27 IST Reason:

3. At the trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many   as   eleven   witnesses.   Relying   upon   the   incriminating material as well as depositions and confessional statements of the accused, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution   could   prove   the   guilt   of   the   accused   beyond reasonable   doubt.   Accordingly,   the   trial   Court   convicted   the accused   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section   396,   IPC and   sentenced   them   to  suffer  rigorous  imprisonment  for  life and   also   to   pay   a   fine   of   Rs.1,000/­   each,   failing   which   to 4 further   suffer   rigorous   imprisonment   for   a   period   of   six months.

4. All   the   aggrieved   accused   persons,   including   the   appellant herein, carried the matter by way of separate appeals before the High Court. By an elaborate judgment which is impugned herein,   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   appeal   affirming   the conviction  and   sentence awarded by the trial Court. That is how the accused Raju Manjhi is in appeal before us.

7. A   specific   argument   has   been   put   forward   on   behalf   of   the appellant that though there was no concrete proof to establish the participation of the appellant in the alleged crime, the trial Court as well as the High Court believed the prosecution story on flimsy grounds and convicted him. Merely on the basis of prosecution   story   that   when   the   police   raided   the   house   of appellant,   he   was   available   in   the   house   and   an   amount   of Rs.400/­   has   been   recovered   from   his   possession,   the appellant   cannot   be   stamped   as   an   accused   and   being involved in the crime. As a matter of fact, there was no act of dacoity   or   burglary   took   place   on   the   alleged   place   of occurrence in which the accused—appellant was a participant. Moreover, the appellant was not identified by any witness in the   test   identification   parade   and   also   in   the   Court.   This circumstance   itself  points at the innocence of the appellant. The case was fastened against the accused out of enmity and it   is   with   the   connivance   of   the   informant   and   I.O.   who dragged the accused into the alleged crime. The recovery made by the police, of a petty amount of Rs.400/­ from the house of 6 the appellant could not be an incriminating factor. One cannot claim it to be the looted money connecting him to the crime, more   so   when   there   was   no   claim   for   such   money   by   the informant or any other prosecution witness. Even the alleged confessional statement of the appellant, cannot be given legal validity as it was not made before a Magistrate.   Particularly when the trial Court itself expressed doubt on the genuineness of   the   confessional   statement   as   the   alleged   confessional statements   of   other   accused   were   also   under   the   same handwriting   and   drawn   by  the   police,  they   cannot   be  taken into account.

16. Moving on to the other limb of argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the accused—appellant had no motive and the   Courts   below   have   failed   to   consider   the   fact   that   the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish motive of the accused. Undoubtedly, ‘motive’ plays significant role in a case based on circumstantial evidence where the purpose would be to establish this important link in the chain of circumstances in order to connect the accused with the crime. But, for the case on hand, proving motive is not an important factor when abundant   direct   evidence   is   available   on   record.   The confessional   statement   of   the   appellant   itself   depicts   the 15 motive   of   the   team   of   accused   in   pursuit   of   which   they committed   the   robbery   at   the   house   of   informant   and   the appellant being part of it.

17. It is also clear from the statement of the accused—appellant that the inmates of the house suffered injuries at the hands of the accused party as they had beaten them with the pieces of wood (sticks) and created terror among them. The recovery of bloodstained sticks from the orchard of Kamal Jain and the FSL report (Ext.X) proves the circumstance with no manner of doubt. Another facet of the case as portrayed by the appellant in his defense is that the informant implicated the appellant in the   crime   with   the   connivance   of   I.O.   due   to   old   enmity. However, we do not find any evidence or material on record in support   of   such   claim   made  by  the  appellant.  On   the  other hand, not only by the recovery of Rs.400/­ from the house of appellant   his   participation   stands   proved,   with   the   other incriminating evidence available on record. 16

18. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we have no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused—appellant   beyond   all   reasonable   doubts.   We, therefore,   find   no   infirmity   or   illegality   in   the   impugned judgment passed by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal preferred   by   the   accused  being  bereft  of  any  substance,  the same stands dismissed.