Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D.N. PATEL, AMITAV K. GUPTA, JJ.
Mani Yadav, son of Lochan Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 109 of 1996 (R)
Decided on : 23-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 161 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Judgment of conviction – Criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant, being aggrieved and feeling dis-satisfied, by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra, in connection with Sessions Trial corresponding to G.R. Case, arising out of Pratap Pur P.S. Case whereby this appellant has been mainly convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment for causing murder of Chandra Dev Yadav. – No fine has been imposed by the Honble trial court. – Held, It appears that he is the informant of the case. As per First Information Report which has been signed by this witness he has stated that this appellant came at their house just on previous day whereas as per the evidence this appellant was staying in their house since long more than couple of weeks. – Similarly, this witness has stated in the First Information Report that after having hot altercations between this appellant and the deceased during evening hours or at dinner time this appellant had left the house of the deceased. – Nothing has been mentioned in the First Information Report that when this appellant returned at the house of the deceased whereas in his deposition PW-4 has stated that this appellant was staying at their house and had gone to bed alongwith him. – Thus, there is material improvement in his deposition so far as returning of this appellant at the house of PW-4 or at the house of the deceased is concerned. – This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court while convicting this appellant in Sessions Trial – As per First Information Report, which was signed by PW-4, after committing murder, this appellant had run away with the weapon whereas PW-4 has materially improved the case of the prosecution while giving his deposition before the learned trial court and has stated in paragraph no.5 of the deposition that the weapon was recovered and seizure list was also prepared whereas the weapon was never recovered nor it is mentioned as recovery in the seizure list (Exhibit-3). – Thus, this PW-4 has no respect for the truth at all. – There is material improvement by PW-4 during his examination before the trial court. – PW-4 has also stated in paragraph no.7 that there are several houses nearby the house of the deceased. – By raising alarm the people rushed at the place of occurrence. – But, except these two brothers of the deceased, who are PW-4 and PW-5, not a single independent witness examined by the prosecution who has supported the case of the prosecution. – This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. – As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid deposition of PW-4 court find that PW-4 is not a trustworthy witness nor he is a reliable witness. – Moreover, it has been stated in paragraph no.13 of the deposition by PW-4 that the deceased and this appellant had consumed liquor on the date of occurrence. – If it is so, then there is no question of hot altercations between these two persons whatsoever arises. Even otherwise also as stated hereinabove, there is material improvement by this PW-4, looking to the First Information Report which was signed by PW-4 and looking to the deposition given by PW-4 to be read with Exhibit-3. – There are crucial suggestion by way of defence by this appellant which leads to material contradiction and material omissions and material improvement of the case of the prosecution by this PW-5, but, the Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. – There is material improvement vis-a-vis his statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. – Thus, PW-5 inspires no confidence and he is untrustworthy and unreliable witness. – This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. – Court, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court-Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial – Appeal Allowed
D.N. PATEL, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant, being aggrieved and feeling dis-satisfied, by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.1996 and 16.05.1996 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1991, corresponding to G.R. Case No.311 of 1990, arising out of Pratap Pur P.S. Case No.24 of 1990 whereby this appellant has been mainly convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment for causing murder of Chandra Dev Yadav. No fine has been imposed by the Hon'ble trial court.
Case of the prosecution:
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW-4-Bilas Yadav had given his statement to the police to the effect that on 05.06.1990 accused-Mani Yadav, who is brother-in-law of the informant, came to his house. There was exchange of hot words between the accused and the deceased. It is further stated by PW-4 in his statement that his elder brother Chandra Dev Yadav (deceased) was sleeping along outside the house in the open space. It is also stated in his statement by the informant that Raj Kumari Devi-sister of the informant, his brother Buta Yadav and Kuldeep Yadav were sleeping in their respective rooms. All of a sudden on hearing screams “Maiya Gai Maiya Gai” the informant (PW-4) awoke and found that Mani Yadav (accused) was attacking his brother-in-law (deceased) by tangi. The informant raised the alarm whereupon Buta Yadav (PW-6), Kuldeep Yadav (PW-5) and Raj Kumari Devi (PW-1) came out of their rooms and found that the accused, after inflicting the injury with tangi (sharp cutting weapon) on Chandra Dev Yadav (deceased). They all raised alarm. The accused ran away with the weapon tangi towards the forest. Attempt was made to catch hold him, but, he could not be apprehended and he escaped away. Thus, the occurrence has taken place on 05.06.1990 at about 11.00 p.m. and the First Information Report was lodged on 06.06.1990 at about 12.15 a.m. After the First Information Report was lodged, investigation was carried out and after recording statement of several witnesses, charge-sheet was filed, the case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Trial No.242 of 1991 and Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra has examined as many as eight prosecution witnesses and on the basis of the evidence on record has convicted this appellant for committing murder of Chandra Dev Yadav. This appellant has been punished for life imprisonment and hence the accused-appellant preferred the present appeal.
3. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant:
• It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
• Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there are major omissions, major contradictions and major improvements in the deposition of prosecution witnesses. This aspect of matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
• Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the place of murder, as narrated by PW-4 & PW-5 are different. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court.
• It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there was no light at the place of occurrence, on the contrary, the witnesses have consistently stated that it was a dark night, they all were sleeping and it is stated by PW-4 and PW-5 that when they saw accused-appellant, the whole occurrence was over and the appellant ran away with weapon. This has been stated in the First Information Report whereas, as per the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, this appellant had run away after throwing the weapon at the place of occurrence.
• It is also submitted by the counsel for th
