) ----- Jaideo Saha, son of late Babulal Saha, resident of village Maropur, Post v. For the
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.424 of 2014 ------- (Against the judgment of conviction dated 24.05.2014 and order of sentence dated 29.05.2014 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal, District Sahibganj in S.C. No. 63 of 2012.) ----- Jaideo Saha, son of late Babulal Saha, resident of village Maropur, Post Office Chowkidhap, Police Station Rajmahal (Radhanagar), District Sahibganj … Appellant(s). The State of Jharkhand Versus For the Appellant(s) For the State
Legal Reasoning
In this case, we find that out of the seven witnesses, PW1, PW2 and PW3 have been declared hostile. PW6 is the Investigating Officer and PW7 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem. PW4 is the informant. He while deposing stated that he heard sound of gunshot and reached the place of occurrence and has seen this appellant assaulting the deceased. PW5 is Kartik Saha who is the other son of PW4, also stated in the same manner. 12. Now the question which falls for consideration is whether PW4 and PW5 are at all reliable witnesses and are eye-witnesses, or not. Admittedly PW4 is the informant. He in the fardbeyan which is Exhibit-2 stated that he received information on mobile that his son was shot. When he reached the place of occurrence he could come to know that the deceased was in the cycle with this appellant when the miscreants who were on a motorcycle, intercepted them and shot dead the deceased. He in the fardbeyan stated that his son Kartik (PW5) also rushed to the place of occurrence. Thus from the fardbeyan it is clear that PW4 and PW5 are not the eye-witnesses to the said occurrence. But 3 surprisingly if we read the statement of PW4 and PW5 when they are deposing in Court, we find that they posed themselves as if they had seen the entire occurrence. They stated that this appellant assaulted and shot dead the deceased. This is a major and vital deviation in the statement by PW4 and PW5 from what has been stated in the FIR. This statement of these two witnesses makes themselves absolutely unreliable and untrustworthy. 13. Though from the postmortem report which is Exhibit-4, we find that there is one gunshot injury but since we are disbelieving PW4 and PW5, it is not possible for this Court to decide as to who is the person who has shot dead the deceased. If we discard the testimony of PW4 and PW5 there are no other evidence to implicate this appellant in this case. 14. Considering what has been held above, since there are no materials to implicate this appellant in this case, we are inclined to allow this appeal and release the appellant forthwith who is in custody, if not required in any other case. 15. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal stands allowed. 16. On the request of this Court, Ms. Pragati Prasad, learned Amicus Curiae assisted this Court properly. We direct the Member Secretary, JHALSA to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/- by way of remuneration to Ms. Pragati Prasad, learned Amicus Curiae. 17. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith. (ANANDA SEN, J.) (GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: 27th August 2024 Tanuj/ N.A.F.R. 4
Arguments
------ : Ms. Pragati Prasad, Amicus Curiae : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, APP … Respondent(s). PRESENT SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. …...... J U D G M E N T 27th August 2024 BY COURT.: PRE LUNCH at 10:30 A.M. Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar, learned counsel has submitted that pairvikar of the appellant has already taken no objection from him, as such, he has no instruction in this case. 2. He has further submitted that he has also informed the arguing learned counsel, Mr. D.D. Saha regarding this case and the Court has also flashed his name in the Display Board, but he has not chosen to appear in this case. 3. Accordingly, Ms. Pragati Prasad, learned counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in this case. She prays to take up this case post lunch. POST LUNCH at 2:15 P.M. 4. Ms. Pragati Prasad, learned Amicus Curiae is ready to argue this appeal. 5. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for the State at length. 6. This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction dated 24.05.2014 and order of sentence dated 29.05.2014 in S.C. No. 63 of 2012 whereby and whereunder learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal, District Sahibganj convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him RI for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for three years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the entire case hinges on the statement of PW4 and PW5 who claims themselves to be eye-witnesses. PW4 is the informant of the case but, if the fardbeyan is read it would be crystal clear that he admits in the fardbeyan that he is not the eye-witness and at the time when he got information about the occurrence PW5 who is his younger son was also with him. Only after receiving information that his son has been shot dead he along with his son (PW5) reached the place of occurrence. As per learned Amicus Curiae the informant and his son who deposed as PW4 and PW5, completely gives a different statement as witnesses and they become eye-witnesses of the occurrence, which is enough to doubt their credibility. 8. Learned APP submits that PW4 and PW5 have stated that they had seen this appellant assaulting the deceased and inflicting gunshot injury. The postmortem report also suggests that the deceased died because of the gunshot injury, thus, this appeal needs to be dismissed. 9. We have heard the learned counsels and have gone through the entire records. We find from the First Information Report (FIR) which is at the instance of PW4, that he states that on 11.08.2011 he received a telephonic information that his son 2 has been shot. On receipt of the said information he and his other son (PW5) reached the place of occurrence and came to know that his deceased son, while he was going with this appellant was intercepted by two unknown persons in the motorcycle and thereafter they shot dead his son. On that basis the FIR was lodged against Jaideo Saha i.e. the appellant. 10. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The trial Court after framing of charge examined seven witnesses and after closure of the evidence, statement of this appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. thereafter he was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. 11.