Skip to content


Shashi Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantShashi Kumar
RespondentThe State of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
.....his wife and son. it has further been submitted that merely on the confessional statement of one mukesh sharma in potka p.s. case no. 41 of 2016, the petitioner has been implicated. it has also been submitted that even if some incriminating articles on account of the confession of mukesh sharma have been recovered, commission of murder cannot be attributed against the petitioner. learned senior counsel submits that since the petitioner has been implicated on suspicion, he deserves to be released on bail. learned a.p.p. has opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that sufficient circumstantial evidences are available in the case diary, which would lead to an inference that it is the petitioner, at whose behest the offence has been committed. -2- at the initial stage of the.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3449 of 2017 ----, Shashi Kumar ....Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .....Opposite Party ---- Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Jit, APP ----- 03/_19__/06.2017 Heard the parties. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No. 419 of 2016, G.R. Case No. 3390 of 2016. Petitioner is the informant of Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No. 419 of 2016, who had alleged that he was a Senior Manager in Indian Overseas Bank, who had been transferred after promotion to Kolkatta. It has been stated that his wife and son used to stay in Jamshedpur. Allegation has been made that he had called his wife on mobile on 16.11.2013 but none had answered which resulted in his asking his former colleague to go and visit them. He was subsequently informed that the Flat was found to be locked. Subsequently from the balcony, his colleague had entered into and seeing some foul play, he had asked the petitioner to come and thereafter the petitioner having found his wife and son dead, FIR was instituted. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence against the petitioner to suggest that he was instrumental in committing the murder of his wife and son. It has further been submitted that merely on the confessional statement of one Mukesh Sharma in Potka P.S. Case No. 41 of 2016, the petitioner has been implicated. It has also been submitted that even if some incriminating articles on account of the confession of Mukesh Sharma have been recovered, commission of murder cannot be attributed against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submits that since the petitioner has been implicated on suspicion, he deserves to be released on bail. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that sufficient circumstantial evidences are available in the case diary, which would lead to an inference that it is the petitioner, at whose behest the offence has been committed. -2- At the initial stage of the investigation, neighbours of the building were examined, who although were not the witnesses to the occurrence but it is stated that the murder has been committed not for the purpose of looting the articles. Paragraph 28 of the case diary, which contains the CCTV Footage, revealed that two persons on 15.11.2016 had entered into the complex and after about half and hour those two persons were shown going back but the shirts they were wearing were different from that they had worn at the time of entering into the complex. The statement of Aditya Maheshwari, who is an important witness reveals that he had gone to the flat twice in search of the family of the petitioner but in the evening, the petitioner had asked him to go from the back side. This witness had seen the door of the balcony open and when he entered into the Flat through the balcony, he had seen wife and son of the petitioner dead and their throats were slit. It appears from the investigation that a murder had been committed of one Mohan Sharma, which led to indicting one Mukesh Sharma, whose confessional statement was recorded in paragraph 80 of the case diary, who had stated about the petitioner being the master mind of the crime as it was on his planning and at his behest, Mukesh Sharma and Mohan Sharma had committed the murder. The petitioner having subsequently been arrested had also confessed his guilt, which is recorded in paragraph 85 of the case diary. Paragraph 114 of the case diary contains the statement of the Principal of Kidzee Pre School, who had stated that the petitioner had phoned him and had asked him whether his son has come to the school or not. On request of the petitioner, Tempo driver was asked to find out the whereabouts of the wife and son of the petitioner which he felt strange as he thought that the petitioner instead of asking them could have enquired from the neighbours of the complex. Tempo driver namely Raju has given his statement, which is also recorded in paragraph 115 of the case diary and he has also stated about the petitioner contacting him and asking him to take his son to the school. Since the son of the petitioner did not make himself present, he waited for some time and when he left the petitioner had once again rang him up and told him that his son is waiting down stairs. The petitioner had told him that the flat was closed from outside and he should call out from just under the balcony. Since the -3- flat was locked and this witness in spite of asking the neighbours could not get the whereabouts of the wife and son of the petitioner returned back to his house. Although learned senior counsel for the petitioner has stressed much on the confessional statement of Mukesh Sharma recorded in paragraph 80 of the case diary but the said confessional statement cannot directly implicate the petitioner. The complicity of the petitioner if at all in existence has to be seen from the surrounding circumstances. It is strange that although the petitioner was staying in a multi storied complex but he did not inform the other residents of the said complex to get the whereabouts of his wife and son. Calling up the Principal of the school and Tempo driver suggests that the petitioner was actually wanting to make it sure that his wife and son are no more in this world. Even the Principal has stated that he found it quite strange that in stead of asking his neighbours, he was consistently telephoning him. Auto driver was also persistently phoned to verify as to whether his son is present in the stand or not. Statement of Aditya Maheshwari who was the first person to have entered into the flat through the balcony at the instance of the petitioner, is an ex colleague of the petitioner. Query made by the petitioner to get the whereabouts of his wife and son from the persons other than the inmates of the complex is perhaps only to ensure that the planning made has been duly carried out as there is nothing to show that the petitioner was in contact with the accused Mukesh Sharma. Circumstantial evidence as depicted above, points to direct involvement of the petitioner in getting rid of his wife and son and such circumstance does not entitle the petitioner for grant of bail. Accordingly, having found no merit in this application, same stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Rakesh/


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //