Back
2006 Supreme(Jhk) 482
High Court Of Jharkhand
Judgename : N. DHINAKAR, C. J. AND R. R. PRASAD, J.
PARNA ORAON - Appellant
Versus
STATE OFJHARKHAND - Respondents
Cri. Appeal 136 Of 1991
Decided On : 04/27/2006
A.K.Chaturvedi, S.SINHA
The judgment emphasizes the principle that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence alone may not be sufficient to convict.
Headnote:
Murder - Loan Dispute - Section 302, Section 201 - [Section 302, Section 201]
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of a person to whom one of the appellants owed money. The deceased was last seen with a third party, but the appellants were found enjoying themselves later. The court found insufficient evidence to uphold the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence connecting the appellants with the crime, and the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances. The court also noted that the deceased was last seen with a third party who was not produced as a witness.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants could be held liable for the murder of the deceased based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the deceased's father.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere presence of the appellants enjoying themselves after the deceased was last seen with a third party was insufficient to establish their guilt. The lack of evidence connecting the appellants with the crime led to the acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants were set aside. The appellants were discharged from their bail bonds.
( 1 ) THE appellants, Parna lohar and Ganesh Lohar, were arrayed as a2 and Al before the Trial Judge, along with two others, Jingu Oraon and Afe Kujur, who were arrayed as A3 and A4 and who were acquitted by the Trial Judge. The Trial judge, while acquitting Ganesh Lohar (Al)of the charge under Section 3021. P. C. , found the first appellant, Parna Lohar (A2), guilty under Section 302 I. P. C. , for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Ganesh lohar, who was arrayed as Al, was found guilty only under Section 2011. P. C. The first appellant (A2) was also found guilty under that section. Both of them, for the said offence, were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.
( 2 ) P. W. 1 Abdul Sattar is the father of the deceased Jainul. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of Murma Mela, the first appellant Parna Lohar took loan of Rs. 200/- from the deceased but did not repay the amount.
( 3 ) AT about 6. 30 p. m. on 31-12-1986, while P. W. 1 Abdul Sattar was in his house along with his son, Jainul, one Ram Dayal mahto went to the house of P. W. 1 and told jainul that he is wanted by the first appellant. The deceased left the house with Ram dayal Mahto. At that time, P. W. 9 Shakhawat and P. W. 4 Abdul Gaffar were in the house of P. W. 1. The deceased who went with Ram dayal Mahto did not return home that night. P. W. 1, therefore, searched for his son, but could not find him. On the next day, while he was searching, he met P. W. 3 Kabil Mian who told that the deceased was seen in the company of the accused Parna Lohar and ganesh Lohar at Khalihan. P. W. 1 went to the Khalihan of the first appellant but could not find his son. He found first and second appellants, sitting in front of fire, enjoying themselves. P. W. 1 came to the conclusion that his son, Jainul, must have been murdered and his body would have been concealed by the appellants and others who (A3 and A4) are their friends. The body was ultimately traced on the basis of the information furnished by the Choukidar, who was examined as P. W. 6. Thereafter fardbeyan was given by P. W. 1 at the police station. The said fardbeyan is Ext. 6. Investigation in the crime was taken by the Investigating Officer, who conducted inquest and prepared inquest report Ext. 7.
( 4 ) THE body was subjected to post mortem by P. W. 11, Dr. D. K. Dheeraj and he found the following injuries :-
" (A) Abrasions W x 1/4", 1/4" x 1/4" over lower part of the front of the neck. (B) Incised wounds :- (1) 3 1/2 x 3/4" x cavity deep on the left forehead starting from 1 1/2 above the outer end of the left eyebrow upto W right to midline. (2) 4 1/2" x 3" x bone deep with skin flapping and chipping of left temporal bone seen over the left temporoparietal area. Skin flup turned posterolaterally. (3) 3 1/2" x 3/4" x bone (upto) deep on the left cheek starting from lower border of outer end of the left eye cutting to maxilla and the lower orbital margin completely. (4) 2" x 3/4" x 1" below the left side of the lower jaw. (5) 1 1/4" x 1/2" x bone deep (cutting the right clavicle) near medial end of clavicle. (6) 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep over left second rip near sternal junction. (7) 1/4" x 1/4" x skin deep below medial end of right clavicle. (8) 1 1/2 x 3/4" x bone deep cutting the c5 vertebra in the lower outer part of the right side of the neck". The Doctor issued Ext. 5, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that death is on account of the injuries suffered by the de-ceased. ( 5 ) AFTER the completion of investigation, final report was filed against the appellants, who denied all the incriminating circumstances, when they were questioned under section 313 Cr. P. C.
( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is absolutely no evidence connecting the appellants with the crime and that the prosecution did not establish any of the links in the chain of circumstances, though it wanted to prove the case against the appellan
