) 1. John Kachhap 2. Samual Kachhpa 3. Johan Kachhap v. …
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 141 of 1999(R) (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.05.1999 passed by Sri Rakesh Ranjan Verma, learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1989) 1. John Kachhap 2. Samual Kachhpa 3. Johan Kachhap ---- Versus ……Appellants The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) ...Respondent ---- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan For the Appellants For the State ---- : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P ---- 12/11.06.2024 Heard Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P 2. During pendency of this appeal, the appellant no. 2 had died and therefore this appeal stood abated as against the appellant no. 2. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
Legal Reasoning
of conviction and sentence dated 11.05.1999 passed by Sri Rakesh Ranjan Verma, learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 4. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbeyan of Sunil Lakra, in which it has been stated that the informant as well as his brother, Arbind Lakra @ Senika Lakra and his friend Kailu Lakra were returning after attending the marriage function in the house of their maternal uncle Michal Kachhap and when they reached near 1 the house of John Kachhap, John Kachhap son of Samual Kachhap, Anil Kachhap, Johan Kachhap son of Dharmdas Kachhap and Samual Kachhap came and it was Samual Kachhap and John Kachhap who caught hold of the brother of the informant. John Kachhap gave a knife blow on the stomach of Arvind Lakra causing grievous injuries to him. On seeing the incident, the informant and his friend raised an alarm, at which many persons had assembled there and the accused persons had thereafter fled away. The reason for the occurrence as stated in the Fardbeyan is that the accused persons had enmity with Michal Kachhap and Arbind Lakra had become a victim of the said enmity. 5. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Namkum P.S. Case No. 77/88 was instituted for the offence under Sections 307/324/34 I.P.C. Subsequently, on account of death of Arbind Lakra Section 302 I.P.C was added. 6. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 302/34 I.P.C and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No. 53 of 1989. Charge was framed against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302/34 I.P.C, which was read and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution has examined four witnesses in support of his case. P.W. 1, Dr. Renubala had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Arbind Lakra on 21.05.1988 and had found the following injuries: Stab wound- Stitched 4 cm x 1 cm on the front part of abdomen on the left side 1 cm. left to midline and 9 cm 2 above umbilicus. As per her opinion, injuries were ante-mortem in nature and stab wound was caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon. The cause of death was opined to be on account of the above noted injuries. She has proved the postmortem report, which has been marked as Ext.-1. P.W.2, Sunil Lakra is the informant and the only eye witness to the occurrence, who has stated that on 20.05.1988 at about 07:30 pm he was returning from the house of his maternal uncle situated at Patratoli along with his brother, Arbind Lakra @ Senika Lakra and Kailu Lakra and as soon as they reached near the house of Chamtu Mahto, Anil Kachhap, Samual Kachhap, John Kachhap and Johan Kachhap came and started assaulting his brother Arbind Lakra. He was assaulted by John Kachhap with a Bhujali, which however missed the target and thereafter his brother Arbind Lakra was caught hold of by the accused persons and John Kachhap had stabbed him on his stomach. His brother on getting injured fell down. On raising an alarm, the accused persons fled away. His brother had received grievous injuries and he along with other persons had taken him on a truck to Namkum Police Station where his Fardbeyan was recorded. He has proved his signature in the Fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext.-2. After the Fardbeyan was recorded, the injured person was sent to Sadar Hospital, Ranchi where the doctor on seeing the serious condition of his brother had referred him to RMCH, Ranchi, but his brother did not survive. In cross-examination, he has specifically named John Kachhap as the person who had tried to assault him with a Bhujali. 3 He had not disclosed to the police that John Kachhap had assaulted with a knife. When the incident had occurred, it was already dark. There was a previous enmity between the accused persons and his uncle Michal Kachhap. The shop of Chamtu is near the place of occurrence. P.W.3, Paskal Lakra has stated that while he was coming back home after attending the marriage, Sunil Lakra had disclosed that Johan, Chota Johan, Samer and Anil had committed the murder of Senika and his brother was taken to Namkum Police Station from where he was taken to Bariatu Hospital, but in course of treatment he had died. He had signed on the Inquest Report as a witness. In his cross-examination, he had deposed that there was a continuous enmity with his maternal uncle and the accused persons. P.W.4, Suman Lakra has been tendered by the prosecution. 8. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in which they have denied his complicity in the commission of the murder. 9. Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that in the Fardbeyan the informant had disclosed about the assault committed with a knife, while in his evidence as P.W. 2, he has stated about the existence of a Bhujali. Learned counsel has submitted that the injuries suffered by the deceased, Arbind Lakra were not grievous in nature which can be deciphered from the fact that after the assault was committed the deceased was taken to the police station and from where he was 4 taken to the hospital where he subsequently died. Mr. Baroi has also submitted that as per the version of the informant he was being accompanied by Kailu Lakra which would mean the Kailu Lakra was also an eye witness to the occurrence, but the said Kailu Lakra has not been examined. Learned counsel has submitted that the shop of Chamtu Mahto was at the place of occurrence, but the said Chamtu Mahto has also not been examined. The Investigating Officer has not been examined which has caused prejudice to the defence as the Investigating Officer could have thrown light on the condition of the deceased when he was taken to the Police Station. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellants had previous enmity with the maternal uncle of the informant and only at the instance of the maternal uncle, namely, Michal Kachhap the appellants have been implicated. On such grounds learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 10. Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the evidence of P.W. 2 is clear, cogent and consistent and the conviction can be based on such evidence. She has also submitted that P.W.2 is an eye witness to the occurrence, who has in very categorical terms stated about the assault committed by John Kachhap with a Bhujali on the stomach of the deceased, Arbind Lakra while the other accused persons had facilitated such assault. According to her, the act done by the appellants was in furtherance of a common intention which was to commit the murder of Arbind Lakra. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the Lower Court Records. 5 12. It would appear from the Fardbeyan that the accused persons had caught hold of the brother of the informant, namely, Arbind Lakra and John Lakra had given a stab blow upon him which ultimately resulted in his death. Admittedly, the murdered weapon was never recovered by the police during investigation. It also appears from the Fardbeyan as well as from the evidence of P.W. 2 that Kailu Lakra was present with the informant when the incident of assault had taken place, but the said Kailu Lakra has not been examined by the prosecution. It also seems a bit weird that when a Bhujali blow was given to the brother of the informant instead of straight away taking him to the hospital, the informant had gone to the police station where his Fardbeyan was recorded and thereafter his brother was taken to the hospital where in course of treatment he died. Though, certain discrepancies have been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant with respect to mentioning of a knife in the Fardbeyan while the same was exaggerated by the informant and stated about the presence of a Bhujali and Chamtu Mahto, who had a shop nearby to the place of occurrence was not examined, but these discrepancies are not of such a nature which would make the prosecution case doubtful. However, as would appear the prosecution case is entirely dependent upon the evidence of P.W. 2, the sole eye witness to the occurrence. The conduct of P.W. 2 as noted above creates a doubt over the case of the prosecution as instead of trying to save the life of his brother he was more interested in recording the Fardbeyan and specifically implicating the appellants. There also does not seem to be any motive for committing such assault as according to P.W. 2 the dispute was with his maternal uncle Michal Kachhap and not with 6 the informant or his brother. The evidence of P.W. 2 further indicates that it was dark when the incident had taken place and there also does not seem to be mention of any independent source of light and giving such vivid description with respect to each of the accused persons and specific roles having been assigned to them seems to be doubtful. The possibility of the appellants being implicated at the instance of Michal Kachhap as stated by learned counsel for the appellants cannot be ruled out. 13. In view of the discrepancies and contradictions noted above, the evidence of P.W. 2 cannot be concluded to be the gospel truth and in such circumstances the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the appellants. 14. In such view of the matter, therefore, we set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.05.1999 passed by Sri Rakesh Ranjan Verma, learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1989. 15. 16. This appeal is allowed. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk 7