Back
2017 Supreme(Jhk) 1873
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Mr. Ananda Sen, J.
Sambhu Pandit - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2006 with Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2006, (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14/11/2005 passed by The Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-V, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 312 of 2004)
Decided On : 20-04-2017
Mr. Anurag Kashyap and M/s. Priya Shresth, Sanjiv Thakur, Advocates, for the Appellants; Mr. Ram Prakash, A.P.P, for the Respondent
The duty of the defense is to cast doubt on the prosecution's case, and when reasonable doubt is cast, the defense succeeds.
Headnote:
FIR - Murder - Indian Penal Code, Section 302/34, Section 27 of the Arms Act - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the prosecution, contradictions in witness statements, and the lack of corroboration. The court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the murder of a shop owner following a dispute over the shop's location. The appellants were convicted based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, the deceased's son, who alleged that the appellants were involved in the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted contradictions in witness statements, lack of corroboration, and the possibility of false implication. As a result, the appellants were acquitted.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, contradictions in witness statements, the delay in transmitting the FIR to the court, and the perfunctory nature of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the duty of the defense is to cast doubt on the prosecution's case, and when reasonable doubt is cast, the defense succeeds. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellants was set aside. The appellants were acquitted from the charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They were directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
JUDGMENT
Ananda Sen, J. (C.A.V.) - Both the appeals, arising out of the common impugned judgment, were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment.
2. The appellants have preferred these appeals challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14th November, 2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 312 of 2004, by which all the appellants have been convicted for committing an offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for one year. The appellants, Shambhu Pandit and Puran Sah (in Cr. Appeal No. 23 of 2006) have also been convicted for committing an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for 7 years for the said offence. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. It is stated that appellant Ram Pandit of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 353 of 2006 died during pendency of the appeal and, therefore, his appeal bearing Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 353 of 2006 is abated vide order dated 6th December, 2016.
3.A. A First Information Report was lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of one Rajesh Kumar Rai (PW9) on 17.10.2003 at 20.30 hours in Village Kanudih, stating therein that his late father Mahendra Pd. Rai was running a Grocery shop for the last 10 years on a piece of land belonging to the accused Ram Pandit in Hamlet (Tola) Kanudih, Mauza Rakti under Sarwan Police Station. The shop was constructed by the deceased as he had given some advance/loan to the accused Ram Pandit. It is alleged that for the last few years the accused Ram Pandit was threatening the deceased to remove the said shop. This fact was narrated by the deceased to the informant (PW9), members of his family and also other members of his locality. On 17.10.2003, at about 06.30 P.M., when the informant was in the Grocery shop along with his father, Ram Pandit called his father from the shop and took him at some distance. The informant became inquisitive and came out of the shop and saw that there was hot talk going on between his father and Ram Pandit. The accused Sambhu Pandit and Puran Sah along with two unknown persons were also present there. In the meantime, Ram Pandit ordered to kill the deceased. On receiving such order, the accused Sambhu Pandit, who was having a pistol in his hand, shot at the deceased and the accused Puran Sah, who also was having pistol in his hand, shot at the deceased due to which the deceased sustained gunshot injuries and fell down. The informant raised hue and cry (hulla). Upon hearing such hue and cry and also the sound of gunshot, several persons of the neighbourhood along with his uncle Sagar Pd. Roy (PW1) arrived there. By that time, the deceased, who was lying drenched with the blood, was already dead. The informant claimed that Ram Pandit, Sambhu Pandit, Puran Sah along with two unknown persons sharing common intention between themselves, killed his father.
4. The fardbeyan of the informant was registered as Sarwan P.S. Case No. 101 of 2003. The police took up the investigation and after completion of the same, submitted charge sheet against all the accused persons including both these appellants for committing offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and on the basis of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, took cognizance of the offences and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charges were framed. As the appellants claimed to be tried, they were put on trial.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined altogether 11 witnesses. PW1 is Sagar Pd. Roy, PW2 is Nakul Pd. Roy, PW3 is Biranchi Pd. Roy, PW4 is Tripurari Pd. Roy, PW5 is Barun Pd. Rai, PW6 is Mukesh Kr. Rai, PW7 is Suresh Pd. Rai, PW8
