Back
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
D.N. Patel, Amitav K. Gupta, JJ.
Saroj Sahu & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 468 of 2004
Decided on: 2nd July, 2014
Section 302 - Murder - I.P.C. - [Section 302, Section 34, Section 324] - The court analyzed the evidence and found major inconsistencies and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the offences of murder and injury beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence were quashed and set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants were involved in a murder and assault. Several witnesses were examined, including the informant and eye witnesses. The defense argued major omissions, contradictions, and improvements in the witnesses' depositions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution witnesses untrustworthy and unreliable due to inconsistencies and improvements in their depositions. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, inconsistencies in their depositions, and the failure to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the unreliability of the prosecution witnesses and the failure to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence were quashed and set aside. The appellants, who had been in custody for over 13 years, were ordered to be released forthwith.
D.N. Patel, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Commissioner, Chotanagpur, Ranchi in S.T. No. 572 of 1995 dated 31.01.2004 whereby these appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. to be read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. for life imprisonment and accused, Rambilash Sahu has been further sentenced to undergo for rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. Both the sentences against Rambilash Sahu are ordered to be run concurrently.
2. It is a case of the prosecution that on 24.05.1995 at 9 A.M. the informant Dharamdeo Sahu (P.W.13) gave fardbeyan to police at R.M.C.H, Hospital that he was going from his house to irrigate his field then Rambilash Sahu, Beni Sahu and Saroj Sahu who were holding Bomb and Sword in their hand were standing there. Thereafter Rambilash Sahu assaulted informant in thigh by knife due to which he get injured and then Beni Sahu, Rambilash Sahu and Saroj Sahu assaulted informant's brother Munna Sahu (deceased) with Bomb and Sword due to which informant's brother fell down and get unconscious. Thereafter when informant family member were taking the informant and his brother Munna Sahu to R.M.C.H, Hospital for treatment then in the way informant brother Munna Sahu died and treatment of informant is going on in Hospital. Thirteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution:
| PW1 | Bimla Devi | She is the wife of deceased Munna Sahu and is the eye witness of the occurrence. |
| PW2 | Gonda Sao | He is the father of deceased Munna Sahu and is eye witness of the occurrence. |
| PW3 | Sahodra Devi | She is the mother of deceased Munna Sahu and is eye witness of the occurrence. |
| PW4 | Suraj Sao | He has proved his signature in the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.1 |
| PW5 | Ratan Sahu | He is the eye witness of the occurrence |
| PW6 | Nandlal Sahu | He has proved his signature in the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.2 |
| PW7 | Dr. Niranjan Minz | He is the doctor who has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Munna Sahu and has proved the postmortem report i.e. marked Ext.3 |
| PW8 | Laxman Sahu | He has proved his signature in the inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.4 and has also proved his signature in the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.5 |
| PW9 | Raju Sah | He is the eye witness of the occurrence |
| PW10 | Balchand Sahu | He has proved his signature in the seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.2/1 |
| PW11 | Fagu Sahu | He is the hearsay witness |
| PW12 | Sanjay Kumar Sahu | He is the eye witness of the occurrence |
| P.W13 | Dharamdeo Sahu | He is the informant of this case and is injured eye witness of the occurrence. He has proved his signature in the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.4/1 |
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that there was major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and, hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the so called eye witnesses of the prosecution are in fact not the eye witnesses at all and they have not proved the place of occurrence, the manner of occurrence, the weapon alleged to have been in the hands of the accused in use of the weapons and fact about the explosion of the Bomb. There is inconsistencies in every aspect of the matter between the so called eye witness, if in fact they are the correct eye witness and truthful reliable eye
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
