Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 879
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, KAILASH PRASAD DEO, JJ.
Sanjay Thakur S/o Sri Ram Lakhan Thakur @ Lakhan Thakur & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 209 of 1996 (R) With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 18 & 28 of 1997 (R)
Decided On : 09-04-2019
For the Appellants :Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Mr. Abhilash Kumar, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta, Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Evidence Act Section 134 – Offence of murder - Injuries - Heard Senior counsel for appellant assisted by Advocate in Criminal Appeal appellant- Senior counsel for the appellant assisted by Advocate in Criminal Appeal appellant - Criminal Appeal appellant-Shankar and Shankar Prasad Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for State in all three aforesaid Criminal Appeals - All these appeals are arising out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence both passed by Judicial Commissioner Ranchi in Sessions Trial - whereby all these three appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section of Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life - Prosecution case is based upon of Chandra recorded by Sub - Inspector of police - Informant has alleged that today informant Hare as pillion rider left their house on scooter going towards old Ranchi for seeing their house and as soon as they reached near appellant in Criminal Appeal No - Called informant by his name - It is stated by informant that as soon as he stopped his scooter Shankar Sao appellant in Criminal Appeal Appellant in Criminal Appeal No Who were standing with on road came and started assaulting by means of sharp - Cut weapon - It is further stated by that got down from scooter and started fleeing away towards Gandhi and on protest made by informant all three accused persons have asked him to keep himself away otherwise they will also kill him – Held, Honble Supreme Court has that unless the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses the testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on ground of alleged inconsistency between it and medical evidence - Considering the same court are of the view that evidence of the sole eye - Witness medical evidence and inquest report exhibit- are consistent and court below has rightly relied upon the same while holding appellants guilty Section - From discussion as made above court are of the view that injuries have been explained by prosecution - Nothing remains unexplained which goes to root of prosecution case – Order according
JUDGMENT :
Kailash Prasad Deo, J.
All the three Criminal Appeals, arising out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, are being heard altogether and disposed of, by this common judgment.
2. Heard, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, assisted by Mr. Abhilash Kumar, Advocate in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.209 of 1996(R) (appellant-Sanjay Thakur), Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta, Advocate in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.18 of 1997(R) (appellant-Mukesh Sharma) and Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.28 of 1997(R) (appellant-Shankar Saw) and Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in all the three aforesaid Criminal Appeals.
3. All these appeals are arising out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 07.12.1996, passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 432 of 1994, whereby all these three appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life.
4. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Chandra Shekhar Tiwari (P.W.1), recorded by Sub-Inspector of police, I.D. Pathak at Gandhi Chowk on 06.04.1994 at 20.55 hours. The informant has alleged that today (06.04.1994) at 20-40 hours the informant alongwith Ramu (Hare Ram Rai) as pillion rider left their house on a scooter going towards old Ranchi for seeing their house and as soon as they reached Gandhi Chowk near Raj Medicine, Mukesh Sharma [appellant in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 1997(R)] called the informant by his name. It is stated by the informant that as soon as he stopped his scooter, Shankar Sao [appellant in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 1997(R)] and Sanjay Thakur, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.209 of 1996(R)], who were standing with Mukesh Sharma on the road came and started assaulting Ramu by means of chhura (sharp-cut weapon). It is further stated by the informant that Ramu got down from the scooter and started fleeing away towards Gandhi Chowk and on protest made by informant all three accused persons have asked him to keep himself away, otherwise they will also kill him. The informant has further stated that all three accused persons chased Ramu towards Gandhi Chowk and near betel shop Shankar assaulted Ramu on his neck by means of chhura due to which he fell down. Thereafter Sanjay Thakur and Mukesh Sharma also assaulted Ramu on his abdomen by means of chhura and thereafter all three accused persons fled away towards East direction. It is further stated that while the accused persons were assaulting the victim, Ramu the owner of Anup hotel has made request to leave him but they did not concede on the request. At that time several shops were open and they have seen the occurrence, who will disclose about the occurrence on being asked. Informant has stated that Hare Ram Rai @ Ramu was brought to Sewa Sadan Hospital but in the way he succumbed to the injuries. All three accused persons who have killed Ramu are resident of co-mohalla of the informant. The informant has claimed that Mukesh Sharma, Shankar Sao and Sanjay Thakur have killed Ramu by causing injury with intention to kill, as a result-Ramu died on the way to hospital.
5. On the basis of the fardbeyan, FIR has been instituted bearing Kotwali P.S. case no. 155 of 1994 dated 06.04.1994 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against three accused persons namely, Mukesh Sharma, Shankar Sao and Sanjay Thakur.
6. After completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no.40 of 1994 dated 29.05.1994 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against three accused persons.
The cognizance of offence has been taken on 06.06.1994 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 07.07.1994.
7. The charge has been framed against all t
