IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, KAILASH PRASAD DEO, JJ.
Ghanshyam Yadav @ Ghanshyam Gope @ Gultan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 73 & 90 of 1997
Decided On : 15-05-2019
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 324/307/34 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 164 - FIR – Investigation - Transpires that another prosecution report in form of same persons Sao was recorded Prasad Hospital after death of his father- In this prosecution report informant inter alia alleged that incidence had occurred on previous night in courtyard of his house when these two accused persons had assaulted his father with knife at several places and rendered him injured who died during treatment at Hospital at around - This document was also adduced by prosecution proved and marked as Ram Officer In-charge who took over investigation - It further appears that Police got statement of three witnesses recorded widow of deceased Sao brother of Devi and brother-in-law of deceased Sao and Sao -Held, Court doubt injuries on body of deceased has been proved but presence of vital injuries on body of victim alone would not prove involvement of accused persons present appellants if ocular testimony is wholly untrustworthy and is replete with doubt- We further find that investigation of this case has been conducted by a police personnel who does not appear to have authority to do so in terms of provisions Police Manual as he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector- Prosecution has not been able to show any authorization by any superior authority to carry out with investigation in absence of Officer-In charge- Court are constrained to observe that even though carried on investigation but he failed to record statement of any of material witnesses named above apart from two witnesses one of whom Suresh who had not been examined and who was tendered- Though Ram Officer-In-charge who took over investigation made efforts get statement recorded C but he also did not record their statements prior that of other witnesses- Statement of these witnesses was recorded after of occurrence and there being no explanation as to why their statements were not recorded earlier during investigation- After comparing evidence of these three prosecution witnesses with their statements made Court find that they have not stood true to their statements made before learned Judicial - Appeals allowed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Jitendra S. Singh and Mr. A.S. Dayal and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Laxmi Murmu representing the State,.
2. The present two appellants are the one who faced trial for the charge under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.151/1994 before the learned court of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hazaribag arising out of Barkagaon P.S. Case No.77/1992 registered on 30th June 1993 under Section 324/307/34 of the I.P.C. to which Section 302 of the I.P.C. was added on 20th July 1993 against both the named accused/appellants herein after the death of the victim Rameshwar Sao, who was the father of the informant Damodar Sao. Learned trial court convicted both of them for the charges under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. by the judgment dated 23rd April 1997 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide order dated 26th April 1997 which are impugned herein.
3. The First Information Report was recorded on the written report of Damodar Sao informant (P.W.5) dated 30th June 1993 narrating the occurrence in the following manner :-
4. As per the informant on 29th June 1993 after having meal informant and his family had gone to sleep. His father was sleeping in the courtyard when at 1 A.M. his mother heard a sound of the metallic door and got up to find two persons namely Gultan @ Ghanshyam Yadav son of Dasai Gope with a knife in his hand and the other Kauleshwar Sao son of Rudan Sao standing beside him at the door both of village Churchu, P.S. Barkagaon. Her mother raised a brawl on which these two persons fled away towards the field and when she saw her husband, he was lying drenched in blood on a cot in an unconscious state. On her brawl informant got up and came to the courtyard and saw his father lying unconscious on the cot drenched in blood. Thereafter other villagers assembled. Reason for the occurrence as explained by him is an incidence which took place during the day on 29th June 1993 itself when the cattle of the two accused persons were ushered in the field of the informant’s father and on being objected they had told informant’s mother that they would see what happens in the night. On these allegations informant alleged that these two persons have assaulted his father on the chest; neck and arm with knife and seriously injured him with an intention to kill. Law was set into motion by a Police Personnel of a rank of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police namely Vijay Singh Banra (P.W.11) as according to him Officer In-charge was not present nor anyone was authorized to conduct the investigation. The written report was adduced as Ext.1 by P.W.5 Damodar Sao.
It transpires that another prosecution report in the form of Fardbeyn of the same persons Damodar Sao was recorded at 21 hours on 1st July 1993 by Shri R.N. Prasad of Sadar P.S., Hazaribag at Sadar Hospital after the death of his father. In this prosecution report, informant inter alia alleged that the incidence had occurred on the previous night in the courtyard of his house when these two accused persons had assaulted his father with knife at several places and rendered him injured who died during treatment at Sadar Hospital at around 7.30 P.M. This document was also adduced by the prosecution, proved and marked as Ext.7 by P.W.10 Arjun Ram, Officer In-charge who took over investigation from 20th July 1993. It further appears that on 24th July 1993 Police got the statement of three witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. namely Laliya Devi (P.W.3) widow of the deceased i.e. Rameshwar Sao, Dhuma Sao brother of Laliya Devi and brother-in-law of deceased Rameshwar Sao and Gurudayal Sao (P.W.1) brother of the deceased who was a neighbour. It further appears that during investigation which was initially done by the Assistant Sub-Inspector Vijay Singh Banra (P.W.11) and thereafter taken over by P.W.10 Arjun Ram, statement of only two witnesses were recorded namely Suresh and Juman
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.