The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.697 of 2002 ------ (Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2002 and order of sentence dated 23.09.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Jamshedpur East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial Case No.09 of 2002) ------ 1. Jadu Nath Mardi, son of Late Shri Ram Mardi, resident of Narda, Police Station Potka, District East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur). 2. Sanday Mardi, son of Late Pandu @ Parun Mardi, resident of Narda, Police Station Potka, District East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur). … … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … … Respondent ------ PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. : SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. For the Appellants For the State
Legal Reasoning
the prosecution, we find that there is no direct eye witness of the 1 occurrence in this case. The entire case hinges on the circumstantial evidence. 4. As per the prosecution case, the deceased is the mother of P.W.-1 (informant). P.W.-1 along with his family and mother was in the house. At night, these two appellants came when appellant No.1 who is the agnate of this informant stated that his son is ill and they should accompany him. Hearing this, the informant went to accompany him but when his wife and children also stated that they will accompany him at night. Leaving the mother in the house, they all went to the house of appellant No.1. When they reached the house of appellant No.1, they found that appellant No.2 was not with them. Appellant No.1 then stated that he is going to bring appellant No.2. Appellant No.1 left but returned after 3 – 4 hours. In the morning when the informant and his family went to his house and knocked the door, they found the door locked from inside and no one opened it. Being suspicious, the informant scaled the wall and entered the house and thereafter found his mother dead in the room. It was alleged that she was strangulated and there were head injuries also. 5. Based on the aforesaid fardbeyan, F.I.R. being Potka P.S. Case No.51/01 was registered under Section 302/34 IPC casting suspicion against these appellants. Charge sheet was also submitted against the appellants and thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the appellants pleaded not guilty and thus charge was framed and trial proceeded against them. 6. 7. There are six prosecution witnesses in this case. P.W.-4 namely Sawna Tudu is a tender witness. P.W.-3 namely Ratan Sardar is the villager. He stated that on hearing commotion, he reached the place of occurrence when this informant opened the door by scaling the wall and they saw the dead body. This person is also not an eye-witness. 8. 9. The only material witnesses are P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. P.W.-1 namely Rajmal Mardi is the informant and P.W.- 2 namely Kapra Mardi is the wife of the informant. They stated 2 that they went to the house of appellant No.1 at night leaving the mother. Next morning when they returned, the door was found locked. P.W.-1 scaled the wall and entered his room, where he found his mother dead. They also stated that when on the last night, appellant No.1 accompanied them to his house, appellant No.2 stayed back and when appellant No.1 went to call him, he returned after a long time. 10. From their evidence also, we could not find any circumstance which points towards the guilt of these appellants. The circumstances that appellant No.1 went to call appellant No.2 and returned after 2 – 3 hours is too a weak circumstance. Nobody has seen these appellants roaming around near the house of the informant. Though, as per the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries are caused by hard and blunt substance and the deceased died due to strangulation, yet the same cannot be a circumstance to implicate these appellants. Further, there is an allegation that the appellants initially were carrying axe but there was no sharp cutting injury on the body of the deceased which is evident from the post-mortem report, which is marked as Ext.2. 11. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays a vital role. In this case, the prosecution has not spelt out any motive behind this occurrence. 12. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt as the chain of circumstance is neither complete nor has been proved. The appellants thus, need to be acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2002 and order of sentence dated 23.09.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Jamshedpur East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial Case No.09 of 2002, are hereby set aside. As the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds, so are the bailers. 14. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court 3 concerned. 15.
Arguments
: Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. ------ ------ J U D G M E N T By Court, : 03rd December, 2024 This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2002 and order of sentence dated 23.09.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Jamshedpur East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial Case No.09 of 2002, whereby and wherein the appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC. They have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. We have heard learned counsel Mr. A.K. Das on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. representing the State at length and have gone through the materials available on record. 3. After going through the F.I.R. and the evidence led by
Decision
Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Dated:- 03/12/2024 NAFR / Prashant 4