). Billu Ganjhu @ Bilu Ganjhu The State of Jharkhand ……… v. …
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1449 of 2017 ….. (Against the judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2015 and order of sentence dated 09.12.2015 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar in Session Trial Case No.216 of 2012). Billu Ganjhu @ Bilu Ganjhu The State of Jharkhand ……… Versus ….. Appellant …. Respondent For the Appellant For the State
Legal Reasoning
……… : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate Mr. Madan Prasad, Advocate : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Additional Public Prosecutor ----------- PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chand J U D G M E N T Per Ananda Sen, J.: Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Soumitra Baroi and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC vide judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2015 and order of sentence dated 09.12.2015, whereby the sole accused has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that entire conviction is based on the evidence of P.W.-8 (Jageshwar Ganjhu), who as per the prosecution is an eye witness, but if the evidence of P.W.-8 (Jageshwar Ganjhu) is securitized carefully, there will be no other option than to come to a conclusion that he is not the eye witness. He submits that since he has given a different story, while deposing as a witness, from his statement in the FIR and also keeping in view that he was not declared hostile, the Trial Court could not have convicted the appellant. He further submits that all the other witnesses are hearsay witnesses or official witness, on whose statement the appellant could not have been convicted. -2- 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that from the FIR it is quite clear that P.W.-8 (Jageshwar Ganjhu) is an eye witness, but admits that he has given a different version while deposition as a witness and has not been declared hostile. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have gone through the records. The fardbeyan is Exhibit-1 and the same is at the instance of Jageshwar Ganjhu. The deceased is his sister and the appellant is his brother-in-law (husband of the deceased). In the fardbeyan he has stated that on 10.08.2012, he and the appellant was ploughing the field. The appellant thereafter went to his house to take breakfast as his wife (deceased) did not bring the same. The informant thereafter also went to the house of his sister and saw the appellant with a stick was mercilessly beating the deceased (wife of the appellant) and was verbally abusing her. The deceased sustained injury. The appellant raised alarm when persons from the neighborhood assembled and tried to pacify the appellant. He further stated that the assault was such that later on the deceased died. 6. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Balumath P.S. Case No.68 of 2012 was registered under Section 302 of IPC. The police after investigation filed chargesheet on 31.08.2012 under Section 302 of IPC. 7. As the appellant pleaded not guilty charge was framed and he was put on trial. Eight witnesses have been examined in this case. P.W.-8 (Jageshwar Ganjhu) is the informant and supposed to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.-7 (Dr. Salkhu Chandra Hansda) is Doctor, who found the following ante mortem and postmortem injuries:- (i) Injury over the right side back of skull measuring 3” x 3” (ii)Injury over the left elbow size 3 cm x 3 cm. (iii)Injury over the back size 2” x 5 cm External genital organ was quite intact, there was some Nasal Secretion. 2. Postmortem injuries:- Fractured of occipital bone, right lateral side of the skull. Brain- was found pale with few clots, in right lateral occipital area, Stomach- contents digested few food particles, with some fluids, In heart- was found some bloods and congested. Liver, Lungs, kidney and spleen were found congested. Intestine- contents few fecal matters. He opined that death is due to brain Hemorrhage. -3- 8. P.W. 6 is the I.O., who investigated the case and filed chargesheet. He exhibited the signature in the FIR and also stated that he has recorded the statement of the witnesses and inquest report was also prepared by him and thereafter he sent the body for postmortem. 9. The rest of the witnesses are hearsay witnesses and the villagers, who only stated that they learnt that this appellant has assaulted the deceased with stick, as a result of which she died. They went to the house of the appellant and saw the dead body. 10. The entire case hinges upon the statement of the informant in the FIR and his statement as P.W.-8. When we go through the evidence of P.W.-8, we find that P.W.8 at para 1 has categorically stated that he was in the village of his sister on the date of occurrence and at that point of time he was in the field with this appellant. He stated that both of them at about 12.30 P.M. went to the house of the appellant where they saw the deceased lying dead. He categorically stated that he does know how she died. He also stated that he has not seen any injury mark on the body of the deceased. However, he was not declared hostile. 11. From the aforesaid testimony of the P.W.-8, the entire prosecution case and the statement made in the FIR gets demolished. In the FIR he states that he is the eye witness to the assault whereas while deposing he states on oath that he has seen no incident. We thus come to the conclusion that this deviation by P.W.-8 is fatal to the prosecution case. Thus, on the evidence of P.W.-8, the appellant could not be convicted. Be it noted that all the other witnesses are hearsay witnesses. 12. In view of the aforesaid fact we hold that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. The judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2015 and order of sentence dated 09.12.2015 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar in Session Trial Case No.216 of 2012 is hereby set aside. -4- 13. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal is allowed. 14. Pending Interlocutory Application(s) if any stands disposed of. 15. This Court directs the above named appellant to be released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case. 16. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court forthwith. (Ananda Sen, J.) (Subhash Chand, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 06th March 2024 R.S./NAFR