Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
H.C. MISHRA, B.B. MANGALMURTI, JJ.
Akshay Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.12, 14 of 1996 (R)
Decided on : 08-05-2018
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 149 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution heavily relied on witness testimony, but most witnesses turned hostile, creating doubt. The court also noted discrepancies in witness testimony and the lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence under Sections 302 / 149 of the Indian Penal Code based on the prosecution's case, which relied on witness testimony. However, most witnesses turned hostile, and the evidence presented raised doubts about the timing and details of the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts due to witness hostility, discrepancies in witness testimony, and lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the crime.
Issues: The main issue was the credibility of witness testimony and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of credible witness testimony, discrepancies in the evidence, and the failure of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
Final Decision: The impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges. Both appeals were allowed, and the appellants were discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.
B.B. Mangalmurti, J.
Both these appeals arise out of the same impugned Judgment so they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.
3. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 20th December, 1995 and Order of sentence dated 21st December, 1995, passed by the Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.362 of 1993, whereby, the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302 /149 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the said offence.
4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Sadashib Laguri, the brother of the deceased Guna Ram Laguri, recorded by B.K. Pandit, Officer-in-charge, Goilkera Police Station on 21.02.1993 at about 12.30 hours in the house of the informant, wherein, he has stated that on 20.02.1993 at about 4.30 p.m. he was in his house. His brother Guna Laguri and mother were also at home. At that time, accused Akshay Pradhan, Ranjan Pradhan, Ramakant Pradhan, Pardeshia Pradhan, Satish Pradhan, Pankaj Pradhan, Trilochan Naik and Baikuntho Naik came to the house of the informant. They were armed with Bhujali, sword, axe and stick and were asking about deceased Guna. When the informant came out of his house, he saw that the accused persons have caught hold of his brother (Guna) and assaulting him and dragging towards the house of accused Akshay Pradhan. When the informant tried to stop them, they threatened him to be killed. Out of fear, the informant remained at his house. After some time, the informant saw that Ranjan Pradhan, Satish Pradhan, Pankaj Pradhand and Trilochan Pradhan came out of the house of Akshay Pradhan and went towards southern side. After 15-20 minutes, he saw that they are assaulting Suleshwar Laguri and dragging him also to the house of Akshay Pradhan. He further stated that since it became evening and many of the villagers had gone to market, so he could not inform anyone about the occurrence due to fear. In the morning, he disclosed this fact to his cousin Markendeshwar Laguri and went to Akshay Pradhan’s house along with his cousin. When he reached there, he saw that Guna Laguri and Suleshwar Laguri were lying dead and the house of Akshay Pradhan was locked. Thereafter, he went to Sarpanch and told him about the occurrence then the Sarpanch also visited the place of occurrence and asked him to report the matter to the police. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police. It is further stated that in the month of January, Suleshwar Laguri and Guna Laguri had killed one goat of Navin Naik and for which a village panchayati was also held in which a fine of Rs.550/-was imposed upon Guna and Suleshwar. At that time, Akshay Pradhan and other accused had said that both were thieves and they would be killed. Thereafter, Guna and Suleshwar had gone out of the village and had returned only 4 – 5 days prior to the occurrence on 20.02.1993.
On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Goilkera P.S. Case No.5 of 1993, corresponding to G.R. No.84 of 1993, was instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.
5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charged were framed against the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 302 / 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the Investigating Officer and the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of both the deceased. Two defence witnesses have also been examin
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
