The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.290 of 2003 With Cr. Appeal (DB) No.243 of 2003 With Cr. Appeal (DB) No.277 of 2003 (Against the Judgment of conviction dated 03.02.2003 and order of sentence dated 05.02.2003, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Sessions Trial No.307 of 2001 (arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No.35 of 2001 & G.R. No.117 of 2001) Cr. Appeal (DB) No.290 of 2003 1.Akhilesh Prasad @ Akhilesh Kumar 2.Manoj Prasad Both sons of Ramdhari Sao, R/o Village :- Nawagarh, P.S. Latehar, District :- Latehar. Appellants …. The State of Jharkhand. ….. Respondent Versus With Cr. Appeal (DB) No.243 of 2003 1.Bal Kishore Prasad @ Nanhaku 2.Shyam Kishore Prasad Both sons of Dhaneshwar Sao, R/o Village:- Nawagarh, P.S. Latehar, …. District:- Latehar. Appellants The State of Jharkhand. ….. Respondent Versus With Cr. Appeal (DB) No.277 of 2003 Bhim Paswan, S/o Ram Wakil Paswan, R/o Village:- Nawagarh, P.S. Latehar, District :- Latehar. … Appellant The State of Jharkhand. ….. Respondent Versus
Legal Reasoning
SRI ANANDA SEN, J. P R E S E N T SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. ….. For the Appellants For the State : : Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, Advocate Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, Advocate Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, SPP ….. 05.12.2024 By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State at length. JUDGMENT 1 1. All the aforesaid three Criminal Appeals (DB) arise out of common Judgment of conviction dated 03.02.2003 and order of sentence dated 05.02.2003, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Sessions Trial No.307 of 2001 (arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No.35 of 2001 & G.R. No.117 of 2001), whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been found guilty for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of the same, they have been further sentenced to undergo RI for one year. Under Section 27 of the Arms Act, they have been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of the same, they have been sentenced to undergo RI for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the FIR was registered against the appellants at the instance of P.W.10 (informant of the case). As per FIR in the intervening night of 1st and 2nd April, 2001, it is alleged that procession of Ramnawami in Village- Nawagarh came to an end at about 2.30/3.00 A.M. After the procession, his two brothers, namely, Surendra Prasad and Rajesh Prasad while they were returning home, both the brothers were intercepted and they were abducted by the appellants. He returned home and informed the villagers and family members regarding the same. Thereafter the informant went in search of his brothers. In the meantime, the informant found the dead bodies of his two brothers lying on the paddy field of one Halkan Singh near a bush at Majrahi Tarn situated towards North of the village. Then the informant sent Ramchandra Choukidar to the Police Station to inform the matter. 3. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Police instituted FIR being Latehar P.S. Case No.35 of 2001 against the five named accused persons under Sections 302 /201 34 IPC. Police after investigation found the case to be true and submitted charge-sheet and the appellants were put on trial under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In order to prove the case, altogether thirteen witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Under Section 319 Cr. P. C., three witnesses were re-examined. 2 5. 6. 7. Learned Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/ 34 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned SPP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. From the perusal of FIR, we find that there is no eye-witness to the murder. As per the FIR, the informant is the only witness of taking away the brothers by these appellants while brothers were returning after the Ramnawami procession. This informant was examined as PW-10 (Birendra Prasad) and he gives absolutely a different story which is completely at variance with as what he had stated in his fardbeyan which is the basis of the FIR. 8. While deposing as PW-10 (Birendra Prasad), he states that after Ramnawami procession he along with his brother(s) returned to the house and were having dinner along with the other family members when these appellants came and asked his brothers to accompany them. He further stated that his father objected, but in spite of that, his two brothers were taken by them. This witness/informant stated that he followed them and saw these appellants assaulting his brothers. He hid behind the bushes and with the help of a torch, he saw the entire occurrence. Thereafter, he stated that his brother (s) were shot dead by these appellants. This statement of the informant as witness, is not at all trustworthy. If he at all had seen the commission of the murder, then what prevented him in stating the aforesaid facts in the fardbeyan is beyond comprehension. 9. Thus, we come to the conclusion that as a witness, PW-10 (Birendra Prasad), the informant is absolutely not a reliable witness. He has exaggerated the entire incident and posed himself to be an eye-witness to which actually he was not. 10. PW-11 (Jangali Sao) is the father and admittedly was in the house. He states that these appellants came and took his two sons and then he directed the informant to follow them. This statement is also in contradiction with the statement made in the FIR. As per the FIR, both the deceased persons never reached the house rather they were abducted before they reached their house while they were returning from the procession. 11. The Investigating Officer has been examined as PW-13 (Seonandan Singh) who is the police official and was officer-in-charge of Latehar Police Station. 3 He stated that on 02.04.2001, Ramchandra Manjhi (the Choukidar) was sent by the informant to the police station to give information, came and stated that in the village, some unknown persons had committed murder of sons of Jangali Sao. This statement also clearly suggests that the statement of PW-10 and PW-11 is not to be believed. 12. Further, PW-10 and PW-11 also admitted that earlier there was a case lodged by Manoj Prasad (Appellant No. 2 in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 290 of 2003) against the deceased persons. 13. Considering the serious discrepancies in the evidence and since PW-10 and PW-11 are not at all reliable witnesses and there is no other legal evidence to implicate these appellants in this case. Be it noted that PW-1 to 8 have turned hostile. 14. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is accordingly set aside. Since the appellants are on bail, as such, they as well as sureties are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 15. Thus, the aforesaid three Criminal Appeals are allowed.
Decision
Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Let T.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once. (Ananda Sen, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 05.12. 2024. sandeep/pawan 4