Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 2501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Kailash Prasad Deo, J.
Rabikant Murmu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 2004
Decided On : 13-08-2018
Aman Shekhar, Adv., Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of substantial evidence and the grant of benefit of doubt in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 324 - [ASSAULT] - [Section 324 IPC] - The court acquitted the appellant of the charge and conviction under Section 324 IPC due to lack of evidence and benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for an assault under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code based on the allegation of shooting an arrow at the victim. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the victim and her husband, without substantial corroborating evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious deficiencies in the prosecution's case, including the lack of medical evidence, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, and absence of independent witnesses. Consequently, the court granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted the appellant.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to convict the appellant under Section 324 IPC, including the lack of medical and corroborating evidence, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, and absence of independent witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of substantial evidence, non-examination of crucial witnesses, and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, leading to the grant of benefit of doubt in favor of the appellant.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, acquitting the appellant of the charge and conviction under Section 324 IPC, and allowed the Criminal Appeal.
JUDGMENT
Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - Heard, Mr. Aman Shekhar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 25.03.2004, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajmahal, in S. C. No.255 of 1993 / S.T. No.209 of 2003, whereby the sole appellant, Rabikant Murmu, has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
3. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant, Thakurain Hansda, recorded by Sita Ram Rai, Sub Inspector of Police, Barharwa Police Station, at Barharwa Hospital at 18.30 hours, on 08.11.1988, wherein the informant has alleged that while she was going along with her husband, Jerman Murmu to Ram Nagar Hatiya, at around 3 p.m., she met covillager, Rabi Kant Murmu (appellant) armed with bow and arrow in his hand. As soon as, the informant reached near Rabi Kant Murmu at a distance of ten yards, he charged informant with an allegation of being daain and said that she will be killed. Thereafter, the accused/appellant with an intention to kill, shot arrow pointing towards her chest, but the same entered into her abdomen and she fell down. The informant has alleged that her husband, Jerman Murmu and other people of village took her to Barharwa Hospital, where she is admitted. She has further stated that the occurrence has been witnessed by her husband and other co-villagers.
On the basis of the left hand thumb impression made by the informant on the ''fardbeyan'', the Police instituted First Information Report bearing Barharwa P.S. Case No. 36 of 1988, dated 08.11.1988 corresponding to G.R. No.342 of 1988 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant.
4. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet bearing No.39 of 1988 dated 19.11.1988 under Sections 324, 326 and 307 I.P.C. against the accused/appellant. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 13.12.1988 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 09.03.1989.
5. The charge has been framed against the accused/appellant on 19.12.2002 under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thus was put under trial.
6. The prosecution has altogether examined two witnesses in order to prove its case.
Thakurain Hansda, informant-cum-victim of the case has been examined as P.W.1 and Jerman Murmu, husband of the informant has been examined as P.W.2.
The prosecution in addition to the oral evidence, has also proved the signature on the ''fardbeyan'' of Jerman Murmu, husband of the informant and the same has been marked as Exhibit-1.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant/accused has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 10.03.2004, wherein the appellant has categorically stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case and there is no evidence against him. The defence has also examine one witness, namely, Hofna Marandi as D.W.1.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant. Being aggrieved at, and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Hon''ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
9. Heard, Mr. Aman Shekhar, learned counsel for the Appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of c
