Back
2016 Supreme(Jhk) 482
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D.N. UPADHYAY & RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Titu Pandit & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 922 of 2007
Decided On : 05-05-2016
For the Appellant No.1 :Mr. Anil Kr. Jha, Advocate.
For the Appellant Nos. 2 to 6 :R.K. Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for consistent and reliable evidence to support a conviction, especially in cases involving multiple accused and complex circumstances.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 302/149, IPC - [Sections 302/149, IPC] - The court discussed the identification of the appellants, the source of light available in the room, the role played by each appellant, and the conviction under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149, IPC. The court acquitted four appellants due to lack of evidence and upheld the conviction of two appellants based on consistent evidence from the informant and hearsay witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Manager Pandit based on the fardbeyan of Nago Devi, who stated that the appellants forcibly entered the house and overpowered Manager Pandit, resulting in his death. The appellants were charged under Sections 302/149, IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in the evidence, including the source of light in the room, the identification of the appellants, and the role played by each appellant. The court acquitted four appellants due to lack of evidence and upheld the conviction of two appellants based on consistent evidence from the informant and hearsay witnesses.
Issues: The issues revolved around the identification of the appellants, the source of light in the room, the role played by each appellant, and the conviction under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149, IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence did not support the conviction of all the appellants under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149, IPC. The court acquitted four appellants due to lack of evidence and upheld the conviction of two appellants based on consistent evidence from the informant and hearsay witnesses.
Final Decision: The court acquitted four appellants and upheld the conviction of two appellants. The conviction and sentence against the two appellants were upheld, while the other four appellants were acquitted.
D.N. Upadhyay, J.
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.06.2007 and 08.06.2007 respectively, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV., Deoghar, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2005/ 39 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 45 of 2005, arising out of Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 10 of 2005, whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of making payment of fine, imprisonment for three months.
2. The facts, reveal from the fardbeyan of Nago Devi, recorded on 17.01.2005, at about 10:30 hours, at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar, are that during previous night, while she was sleeping in the house along with her husband Manager Pandit (deceased), all the appellants, named in FIR, forcibly entered in the house and overpowered Manager Pandit. It is disclosed that Jhupar Pandit caught hold of the deceased, whereas, Titu Pandit inflicted blow by means of spear on the chest of Manager Pandit. Remaining accused were also accommodating former accused Titu and Jhupar. When the informant tried to intervene, she was threatened. On hulla, appellants fled away. Son of deceased and other villagers attracted towards the place of occurrence after hearing hulla raised by informant. Manager Pandit was taken to hospital but he was declared dead.
3. On the basis of fardbeyan of Nago Devi, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 10 of 2005, under Section 302/34, IPC, was registered against the appellants.
Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet against the appellants was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2005/ 39 of 2005.
Charges under Sections 302/149, IPC against appellants were framed, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined altogether eleven witnesses, whereas, two defence witnesses have also been examined by the appellants.
Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, at the conclusion of trial, placing reliance on evidences and documents available on records, held the appellants guilty and inflicted sentence, as indicated above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that appellants have been falsely roped in this case due to land dispute prevailing between them. They are agnates of the deceased. It is admitted case of the prosecution that occurrence took place at 2:00 a.m. in the room of deceased. Source of light available in the room was small kerosene lamp (Dhibri). It is submitted that normally nobody keeps kerosene lamp on in the room during night. Investigating Officer and other witnesses have admitted that no kerosene oil was available in that lamp. This evidence goes to show that there was darkness in the room and it was not possible for informant-PW9 to identify all the six appellants. It was also not possible for her to explain what overt act was committed by each and every convict. As a matter of fact, deceased had encroached a piece of land, belonging to some Mohammedan people and on that encroached land, he had constructed a house. Certainly, he was having enmity with those people. Time of occurrence was 2:00 a.m., is also admitted. In fact, nobody had seen the occurrence during night. The informant and her son were occupying the old house and they could learn about the occurrence only in the morning but they have implicated the appellants because they were having grudge with them from before. The informant is not wholly reliable witness and therefore, no conviction can be recorded on her statement.
5. Learned counsel has further argued that PW5 (son of deceased) was not at all present in the room where alleged murder had taken place. Devendra Pandit, PW3 has clearly stated that Shravan Pandit, PW5 had been r
