High Court
Case Details
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 519 of 2014 … Against the judgment of conviction dated 27.03.2014 and order of sentence, dated 10.04.2014, passed by the Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 742 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 5454 of 2011. … Galetsan Barla … Appellant -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand … Respondent. For the Appellant For the Respondent … : - Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, Advocate. : - Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. … P R E S E N T: - Sri Ananda Sen, J. Sri Subhash Chand, J. …
Legal Reasoning
Per Sri Ananda Sen, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. We have gone through the trial court records. 3. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 27.03.2014 and order of sentence dated 10.04.2014, passed by the Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 742 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 5454 of 2011, whereby the appellant has been convicted for committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, who has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life under section 302 and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 4. The prosecution case is based on the Fard-beyan of P.W.4. P.W. 4 stated that she along with her mother (P.W. 5) on 30.10.2011 at 05.00 am in the morning, was going to attend the nature’s call, when the appellant Galetsan Barla @ Godya Barla attacked them with a spear and an axe. The appellant gave a 2 [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 519 of 2014] blow on the neck and an axe blow on the right side of the eyebrow of her mother. When the mother had fallen down because of the said blow, the appellant also gave axe blow on her right ear. The informant thereafter raised alarm, when the appellant saw that other persons are coming, he fled away from the place of occurrence. The informant stated that her mother died, as a result of the said injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid fard-beyan, Lapung P.S. Case No. 61 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 5454 of 2011 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. After commitment, charge was framed under the aforesaid section to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. After framing of charge, the prosecution examined five witnesses. The witnesses are Baran Barla (P.W.1), Matias Barla (P.W.2), Mahabir Sahu (P.W.3), Jinid Barla (P.W.4-informant) and Pawan Kumar Singh (P.W.5 who is the Investigating Officer). P.W. 1, Baran Barla in his statement, had stated that he had not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased, but had admitted that he had signed the seizure list, wherein, an axe was seized. He also stated that he knows the appellant, as the appellant belongs from the same village. P.W. 2 is Matias Barla, who had stated that he had seen the dead body of the deceased and after seeing the dead body, 3 [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 519 of 2014] he could ascertain that the deceased was murdered by spear and an axe. He also admitted that he had signed the seizure list as a seizure witness, wherein, an axe was seized. He also stated that he had seen the accused appellant standing with the axe in his hand. P.W.3 is Mahabir Sahu, who stated that he had heard that the deceased was murdered by this appellant. He had seen the dead body in the courtyard of the deceased but the body was covered with cloth. He had seen the appellant tied with the pole in the village. The Police came and had taken the dead body. He was declared hostile only for the limited purpose as he did not deposed as per his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Nothing more was extracted from him. P.W. 4 is Jinid Barla, who is the informant and the eye- witness to the occurrence. She stated that the occurrence had occurred on 30.10.2011 and the assault was by the appellant. She stated that with the help of a spear, the appellant had assaulted her mother on her neck. Her mother fell down and then with the back side of the axe, the appellant assaulted the deceased on the upper part of the eye. Her mother screamed, after she was assaulted for the first time. The informant stated that she informed the police and got her statement recorded before the Police, which was the First Information Report. She identified her signature on the fard-beyan, which was marked as exhibit-3. She also deposed that the Police had seized the spear and the axe. The post-mortem was conducted at Bariyatu 4 [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 519 of 2014] hospital. She stated that the appellant is her cousin, thus, she knows him. In her cross-examination, she admits that she along with her mother were in her house on the fateful day. In paragraph 12 of her cross-examination, she stated that when she reached the place of occurrence, the appellant was caught hold by the villagers. She stated that she gave water to her mother, when she was in the injured condition, but, her mother could not drink the same. In Paragraph 15, she states that thereafter the Police had never interrogated her. She denied the suggestion that she was shielding the accused-appellant. P.W. 5, Pawan Kumar Singh (S.I.) is the I.O., who stated that he took up the investigation. He further stated that the formal F.I.R. was registered, which was in the pen of the Officer in- Charge, Rajdev Singh and forwarding his case in writing. The same was marked as Exhibit 4. The formal F.I.R. was marked as exhibit 5. He stated that he recorded the statement of the witnesses and had prepared the inquest report. At this stage, it is important to note that the trial court had recorded at the instance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Death Inquest Report is not on record. He stated that he prepared the seizure memo and it was signed by two independent witnesses. The said signatures were marked as Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7. He arrested the appellant and prepared the arrest memo, which was marked as Exhibit-8. The dead body was sent for post-mortem and post-mortem report was obtained by him. He also submitted the charge-sheet. 5 [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 519 of 2014] 7. In the instant case, neither the inquest report was exhibited nor the Post-Mortem report. In absence of the post-mortem report, the injuries and the nature of death is not proved. It is the prosecution case, as per the F.I.R. and the deposition of P.W. 4 that this appellant had given a blow with the axe and also by a spear. There is no such corroborative medical evidence. The Post-Mortem Report is on the record, but the same has not been proved by adducing any evidence. 8. The eye-witness to this occurrence is P.W. 4, who also is the informant. In the F.I.R., she stated that she along with the deceased was moving to answer the call of nature, when this incident had occurred, where this appellant had assaulted the deceased with axe and the spear. In examination in chief, she also stated that she is the eye-witness to the occurrence and this appellant had first assaulted the deceased with a spear and after she fell down when the axe blow was also given. In cross-examination in paragraph 12, she stated that when she reached the place of occurrence, she saw her mother lying dead and the villagers had caught hold the appellant. This statement of P.W. 4 creates a doubt in the mind of this Court as to whether actually, she had seen the occurrence or not. When there is an element of doubt, the benefit of the same will go to the accused. 9. Thus, in absence of corroborative medical evidence and since, we have hold that whether P.W. 4 as an eye-witness to the assault is doubtful, we are inclined to allow this appeal. 6 [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 519 of 2014] Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction, dated 27.03.2014 and order of sentence dated 10.04.2014, passed by the Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 742 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 5454 of 2011 is set aside. Hence, the appellant stands acquitted and is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 10. Let the trial court records be returned to the Trial Court. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated – The 05th March, 2024 APK/N.A.F.R. (Ananda Sen, J.) (Subhash Chand, J.)