Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 949
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ.
Narayan Ganjhu, son of Meghan Ganjhu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 615 & 396 of 2018
Decided On : 31-08-2020
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.120(b), S.120
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with section 120-B – Order of Conviction – Offence of Murder – In S.T., Narayan Ganjhu who is appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and fine of Rs.30,000/- under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Gopal Mahto who has filed Cr. Appeal (DB) has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and fine of Rs.30,000/- under section 302 read with section 120-B IPC. – Held, Construction of Ashram building had commenced about 18 months before occurrence and therefore it is unlikely that alleged dispute between PW-5 and his brother and dispute with Prem Sao were reason for occurrence rather it seems that it was reason for their false implication in this case – None of witnesses has imputed any motive to Narayan Ganjhu and in his cross-examination PW-2 has admitted that he had no dispute with Ashram nor had he any dispute with her family. – On such facts, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved motive for crime. – Court have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has failed to establish place of occurrence, manner of occurrence and participation of appellants in crime and, accordingly, their conviction in S.T. for committing murder of Balkisun Sao is held unsustainable – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both of R.I for life with fine under section 302 IPC passed against appellant, and R.I for life and fine under section 302 IPC read with section 120-IPC passed against appellant, by Additional Sessions Judge-IX-cum-F.T.C, Hazaribag in S.T. are set-aside – Criminal Appeal Allowed
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Jitendra S. Singh, Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Rohan Mazumdar
For the Respondent: Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P
JUDGEMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
In S.T. No.389 of 2008, Narayan Ganjhu who is the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.615 of 2018 has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and fine of Rs.30,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Gopal Mahto who has filed Cr. Appeal (DB) No.396 of 2018 has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and fine of Rs.30,000/- under section 302 read with section 120-B IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution runs like this. Balkisun Sao was associated with Prajapita Brahma Kumari Ishwariye University for the last several years. His daughter and son were also working with them and they were living in Ashram. At Barkaam a building was being constructed for Prajapita Brahma Kumari and Balkisun Sao was supervising the construction work. For the past few days he was staying there in the night and his son used to bring food for him. Prem Sahu and Gopal Mahto, both residents of village-Keredari, had several quarrel with Balkisun Sao and they were threatening to teach lesson to him. On 08.03.2008, at about 10.00 P.M., Brahma Kumar Yogendra, Awadh Mahto and Dhaneshwar Mahto had gone to Barkaam with food for Balkisun Sao but he was not found in his room. An information was given to Brahma Kumari Sarita, daughter of Balkisun Sao, then she along with Indrajeet Mahto, Ramdhani Mahto and others reached there. In course of search when they moved towards south-eastern side they heard cries of Balkisun Sao in the forest. When they reached there saw five persons assaulting him who on seeing them coming there left him and fled away. However, after some chase one of them was caught by them. He disclosed his name Narayan, an Ganjhu and said that Yadav Ganjhu Rijhan Ganjhu, Govind Ganjhu and Laldeo Ganjhu were with him. He has further disclosed that Yadav Ganjhu had offered drinks to them and at his instance they had gone to Barkaam and brought Balkisun Sao from his room in Lebarwa forest to kill him.
3. Around 5.40 AM on 09.03.2008, a written report was given by Brahma Kumar Yogendra at the police station and on that basis Keredari P.S. Case No.14 of 2008 was registered against Narayan Ganjhu, Yadav Ganjhu, Rijhan Ganjhu, Govind Ganjhu, Laldeo Ganjhu, Prem Sao and Gopal Mahto under section 302/ 120-B IPC and after the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against Narayan Ganjhu and Gopal Ganjhu on 06.06.2008; they were put on trial in S.T.No. 389 of 2008. At that time the investigation against other accused persons was pending and after supplementary charge-sheets were filed against Yadav Ganjhu, Govind Ganjhu, Rijhan Ganjhu, Laldeo Ganjhu and Prem Sao, S.T.No.574 of 2008 commenced against them. Subsequently, trial against Govind Ganjhu and Yadav Ganjhu was amalgamated in S.T. No. 389 of 2008 which was started against Narayan Ganjhu and Gopal Ganjhu, but, vide order dated 18.05.2012 trial against Govind Ganjhu and Yadav Ganjhu was separated and re-numbered as S.T. No.389(A)/2008.
4. During the trial, the prosecution has examined six witnesses to prove charge against the appellants. Brahma Kumari Sarita PW-2 is the daughter and Brahma Kumar Yogendra PW-6 is son of Balkisun Sao. Dhaneshwar Mahto PW-3, Awadh Mahto PW-4 and Ramdhani Mahto PW-5 were living in Ashram at the time of the Occurrence; Ramdhani Mahto is brother of Gopal Mahto, the appellant.
5. PW-2, daughter of the deceased, has deposed in the Court that at about 12.30 midnight her father was killed by Narayan Ganjhu, Laldeo Ganjhu, Yadav Ganjhu, Rijhan Ganjhu and Govind Ganjhu. She was residing in a Ashram at Keredari and her father was supervising the construction work at Barkaam. For the past few days her father was staying in the night at Barkaam and her brothers would take food for him. In the night of the occurrence at about 11.30 p.m. she received a phone call from her brother that their father is not there whereafter she started from Ashram with five other persons in search of her father and in Course of search she heard cries coming fro
