Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 2522
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.B. Mangalmurti, J.
Ram Naresh Sao - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2003, 101 of 2003
Decided On : 20-08-2018
A.K. Chaturvedi, Adv., Ravi Prakash, Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Sections 448, 341, 380 and 307/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 448, 341, 380, 307/34 - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution case relied heavily on the testimony of one witness, which lacked corroboration from other witnesses. The court also noted that the injuries did not meet the criteria for conviction under Section 307 of the IPC. As a result, the judgment of conviction and sentence were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants assaulted the informant and his family members, resulting in injuries and the death of a relative. The prosecution heavily relied on the testimony of one witness, while other witnesses either turned hostile or did not support the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case lacked corroboration and that the evidence presented did not meet the criteria for conviction under Section 307 of the IPC. The court also noted suspicions raised by the brother of the deceased regarding the informant's involvement in the murder.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, the lack of corroboration for the witness's testimony, and suspicions raised regarding the informant's involvement in the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of corroboration for the prosecution's case, doubts raised regarding the informant's involvement, and the failure to meet the criteria for conviction under Section 307 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The appellants were discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
JUDGMENT
B.B. Mangalmurti, J. - As both appeals arise out of same judgment of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No. 213 of 1999 by the court of Sessions Judge, Latehar, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2002 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2002, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in S.T. No.213 of 1999, holding the appellants guilty for the offences under Sections 448, 341, 380 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Ram Naresh Sao and Kewala Devi have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 307 I.P.C., R.I. for one year under Section 380 I.P.C., R.I. for one month under Section 341 I.P.C. and R.I. for three months under Section 448 I.P.C. Appellants Bijay Prasad and Sunil Prasad have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 307/34 I.P.C., R.I. for one year under Section 380 I.P.C., R.I. for one month under Section 341 I.P.C. and R.I. for three months under Section 448 I.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in short is that the fardbeyan of Dilip Prasad was recorded by S.I. Jakaria Khan, on 29.08.1998 at 12.15 Noon at the verandah of Sadar Police Station, Palamau at Daltonganj that he is resident of village Saryu under Garu Police Station and his neighbour Naresh Sao, whose son Vijay Sao fell ill due to jaundice about nine months ago and thereafter his family members started calling his wife as Daain and due to this reason there was some quarrel between both the families few months ago. This matter was complained to Garu Police Station but no action was taken so the family members of Naresh Sao were causing nuisance. The further case is that on previous day i.e., on 28.08.1998 at around 10:00 P.M., his neighbour Naresh Sao, Vijay Sao, Sunil Sao and Kewala Devi knocked his door, when he opened the door, he recognized his neighbours Sunil Sao and Vijay Sao from their voice. He also saw that Naresh Sao along with his family members were holding lathi whereas Vijay Sao was holding gandasa and Kewala Devi was holding arwai (iron rod) and they assaulted them. Naresh Sao instigated Vijay Sao then Vijay Sao assaulted him from gandasa causing head injury due to which he fell on the ground. They also caused injuries to his son Raju and his wife Lilawati Devi on several places by lathi. Vijay Sao gave blow on the neck. Informant and others tried to escape, but were chased by accused persons for some distance but due to assembling of the villagers, accused persons returned. It is further alleged that Vijay took his wrist watch and Naresh Sao took Rs. 10,000/- from his shop and Sunil snatched golden chain from his wife and fled away. Due to the fear of accused persons and as there was much water in the river, they could not approach Garu Police Station and came here. They have also kidnapped his bhagina Mohan. On the basis of this fardbeyan, which was forwarded and was registered as Garu P.S. Case No.13 of 1998 dated 03.09.1998 under Sections 448, 341, 324, 307, 323, 379 and 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No.268 of 1998. During investigation, the dead body of Mohan Prasad was recovered from a well and the same was sent for post-mortem, then Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code was also added.
After investigation, the Police submitted the charge-sheet against all the appellants under Sections 448, 341, 324, 323, 307, 379, 364, 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges upon all the four appellants were framed under Sections 448, 341, 380, 364/34, 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code upon which they denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the trial upon all the appellants proceeded.
4. In order to
