Back
2014 Supreme(Jhk) 97
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
D.N. PATEL & P.P. BHATT, JJ.
Moti Ganjhu & another – Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1829 of 2003
Decided On : 16.1.2014
For the Appellants:Mr. Navin Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Vibhuti Shankar Sahay, A.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on trustworthy eyewitness testimony and the importance of corroborating evidence, while also highlighting the significance of a thorough and unbiased investigation process.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence presented by prosecution witnesses, the medical report, and the conduct of the investigating officer. It highlighted the reliability of the eyewitnesses, the corroboration of their testimony with medical evidence, and the major lapses in the investigation process.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants murdered the deceased due to previous enmity. The eyewitnesses, including the informant, provided accounts of the incident. The defense raised concerns about contradictions and improvements in the witnesses' statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the eyewitnesses to be reliable and trustworthy, noting that minor contradictions and omissions were not substantial. It criticized the investigating officer for major lapses in the investigation process and directed an inquiry against them.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the conduct of the investigating officer, and the corroboration of witness accounts with medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the trustworthiness of the eyewitnesses, the corroboration of their testimony with medical evidence, and the major lapses in the investigation process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the decision of the Trial Court in convicting and punishing the appellants for murder.
D.N. PATEL, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 188 of 1995, whereby these two appellants have been convicted vide order dated 28th October, 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and they are punished vide order dated 29th October, 2003 for life imprisonment and are liable to make payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. Against this judgment and order of conviction, present appeal has been preferred by both the appellants.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.09.1994 at 12.00 hrs the informant Ganesh Ganjhu (P.W.6) gave fardbeyan to police that on previous night i.e. on 17.09.1994 at 8:00 p.m. his son Mahavir Manjhi (deceased) was distributing Prasad in the village and in the meantime informant saw that his co-villager Moti Ganjhu and Chhoti Ganjhu were dragging his son toward their house and thereupon the informant, his brother Ganjana Ganjhu and his sister Madia Devi came running to the house of Moti Ganjhu and saw that Moti Ganjhu and Chhoti Ganjhu were assaulting informant son Mahavir Ganjhu with Lathi and when informant tried to save his son and raised hulla then they assaulted Shanti Kumari with lathi and run away from there. Thereafter informant saw his son lying in the house of Moti Ganjhu and blood was coming out from his body. The informant further alleged that reason for occurrence is previous enmity between the deceased Mahavir Ganjhu and accused persons.
Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
| PW-1 | Dr. A. Ganguli
| He is the Doctor who has conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of deceased Mahavir Manjhi and he has proved the post-mortem report i.e. marked as Ext.1. |
| PW-2 | Manu Ganjhu | He is the Eye Witness of the occurrence. |
| PW-3 | Tulsi Ganjhu | He is the of the occurrence. |
| PW-4 | Bhagia Devi | She is the of the occurrence. |
| PW-5 | Pyaso Devi | She is the of the occurrence. |
| PW-6 | Ganesh Ganjhu | He is the Informant of this case and is father of deceased Mahavir Ganjhu. He is the of the occurrence. |
| PW-7 | Dr. Vidyapati | He is the who has examined the injury of Shanti Devi and injury 2. |
| PW-8 | Suman Lal Yadav | He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has fardbeyan 3 and also Inquest Report 4. He has requisition of Shanti Devi 5 and has also FIR 6. |
One witness was examined by the Defence –
| DW-1 | Shanti Kumari | She deposed that she had not given any statement to police and she was also not examined in any hospital for any inquiry. |
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, who has mainly submitted that there are major omissions, contradictions and improvements and these major omissions, contradictions and improvements have been treated as a minor one by the learned Trial Court. The so-called eye-witnesses are not the eye-witnesses of the incident at all. Moreover, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that PW-2 has given different versions before the police and his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereas, before the Court, the narration is quite different i.e. proved with the deposition of Investigating Officer, who is PW-8. 50-60 persons were present on the date of incident and on the place of occurrence but nobody has tried to save the life of the deceased. Neither the witnesses of the FIR nor the witnesses of the inquest panchnama have been mentioned in the charge-sheet as witnesses nor they have been examined by the prosecution in the court of law. PW-3 is also not the eye-witness of the incident because he has narrated place of occurrence differently. As per this witness, murder has taken
