Back
Jharkhand High Court
Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Ambuj Nath, JJ.
Anil Singh @ Dhurwa Ji
@ Rakesh Ji – Appellant
versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.78 of 2018
Decided on 4.8.2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 452 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Murder and house trespass – Life sentence – It was night and informant could not identify accused persons properly – Evidence of informant was recorded after seven years from date of occurrence and with lapse of time memory fades – But that by itself would not dilute case of defence since defence has primarily made a challenge to identification of appellant – Evidence of informant with respect to identification of appellant as one of extremists involved in committing murder of her husband cannot be relied upon – Absence of any corroborative evidence which would imply about presence of appellant at the time of incident would further go to show that appellant could not have been convicted solely on the basis of evidence of informant – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside. (Paras 18 and 19)
Result: Appeal allowed. Accused acquitted.
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by Mr. Zubair Khan, learned counsel appearing for the informant.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 23.09.2017 passed by Sri Biresh Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Garhwa in S.T. No. 86/2011, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 and 452 of the IPC as also u/s 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence u/s 302 of the IPC, R.I. for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence u/s 452 of the IPC and R.I. for seven years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence u/s 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The fardbeyan of Binda Devi was recorded on 06.05.2008 at 10:00 A.M, in which, she has stated that on 05.05.2008 at about 7:00 P.M. she along with her husband Rajeshwar Baitha @ Sanjay Baitha and her children after locking the door was cooking when the sound of some persons could be heard. The door was knocked at which she opened the door and found 8-10 persons in Khakhi dress armed with rifles were standing. One of the persons who was short and thin was calling the informant Bhabhi and was repeatedly demanding her mobile. She was being hesitant but when threats were extended she had handed over her mobile to them. As soon as the mobile was handed over 8-10 extremists entered into the house, caught hold of her husband and started dragging him outside by saying that he is a spy who gives all information about the movement of naxalites to the Police and therefore he should be eliminated. It has been alleged that she pleaded with them but it fell on deaf ears. Her husband was dragged and was taken towards the house of Jairam Singh where he was thrashed to the ground and was riddled with bullets as a result of which he died at the spot. After committing the murder the extremists fled away by raising slogans. At the time of the incident one of the extremists disclosed his name as Anil Commander and told her not to disclose his name to the Police. Since it was night the Police could not be informed. Based on the aforesaid allegations Ranka P.S. Case No. 47/2008 was instituted against Anil Commander and 8-9 extremists for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 342, 452, 171 of the I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of the CLA Act and Section 38/39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against Anil Singh @ Dhurwa Ji @ Rakesh Ji (appellant) and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 86/2011. Charge was framed against the accused for the offences u/s 148, 452, 302 of the I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of the CLA Act and Section 38/39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case.
5. P.W.1 (Gopal Tiwary) has produced the material exhibits on the order of the Officer-in-Charge. The same included 05 empty cartridges of 7.62 mm which have been marked as Material Exhibit Nos. I to I/4, one pellet marked as Material Exhibit-II, one live cartridge of 7.62 mm of SLR rifle marked as Material Exhibit-III and blood soaked earth marked as Material Exhibit-IV. The material exhibits bore the mark MR-21/40. The challan of the material exhibits was in the handwriting of the Officer-in-Charge Binay Prasad Mandal and which also bears his signature and which has been marked as Exhibit-1.
6. P.W.2 (Mahendra Singh) and P.W.3 (Jai Ram Singh) did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hos
Murder and house trespass – In absence of any corroborative evidence accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of evidence of informant.
The burden of proof on the accused to explain incriminating circumstances and the importance of evidence such as the source of light and recovery of items in establishing guilt.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
Inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in eyewitness testimony can undermine the prosecution's case and lead to the failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court emphasized that suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal jurisprudence, requiring reliable and corroborated evidence for conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
