The central legal point established in the judgment is that there cannot be any conviction on the basis of suspicion, and the burden of proof in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 17.10.2003, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IX, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 26 of 1993, preferred by the petitioner has been partly allowed.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 27.02.1993, in Sessions Trial No. 514 of 1989, arising out of Telco P.S. Case No. 0133 of 1988, corresponding to G.R. No. 881-A of 1988, passed by the learned IInd Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, has been set aside and the conviction of the petitioner is altered from that of 307 IPC to Section 308 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years for the offence under Section 308 IPC.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 17.06.1988 the informant went to the house of his friend Kinder Chandra Chand in marriage party. The informant met the accused there and they both went together to give presents to the wife of Kinder Chandra Chand. The wife of Kinder was surrounded by a number of females. When the informant was going to give the present, accused said that today is the day of festival and aimed the pistol in the air and thereafter fired the pistol on the left side of the waist which hit the informant on his waist. The accused fled away. The reason for this occurrence is that the informant used to buy kerosene oil from the accused but stopped about two months ago.

4. Ms. Apurwa Pathak, learned amicus for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has failed to consider following issues while passing the judgment of conviction:

(i) Though the place of occurrence was fully crowded and a reception party was going on; however, no witness has been examined.

(ii) As a matter of fact there was no eye-witness to support the case of the prosecution.

(iii) Even the I.O. has not been examined so as to prove the place of occurrence as well as manner of occurrence.

(iv) Though PWs. 1 and 4 who are the doctors have supported the injury but the fact remains none of the persons has identified this petitioner.

(v) Though there was seizure of cloth of the victim which supports that there was a firing. However, as stated herein above there was no eye witness and the prosecution has been failed to examine any independent witness in order to support the case.

Learned Amicus contended that the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty. In the case of Ashok Kumar Ram vs. State of Jharkhand, 2021 SCC Online Jhar 55 the Division Bench of this Court has held that criminal antecedent of the informant as well as the family members and his friends and non-examination of independent witness in spite of the presence of large crowded at the place of occurrence creates serious doubt on the manner of occurrence as set up by the prosecution.

5. She lastly submits that suspicion; however grave may be, cannot take place of prove and there is large difference between something that may be proved and something that has been proved. Relying upon the aforesaid submission learned amicus prays for acquittal of this petitioner.

6. Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned APP supports the judgment passed by the courts below and submits that there is concurrent findings. Though I.O. has not been examined but doctors have proved that the injury was due to firing and that was grave in nature. Merely that the informant and accused were having bad relation will not absolve this petitioner from conviction. As such, the instant application may be dismissed.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgments including the LCR it appears that on 17.06.1988 the informant went to the house of his friend Kinder Chandra Chand i