IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Badri Turi, son of Jodo Turi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. - Respondents
Acquittal Appeal No.17 Of 2012
Decided On : 12-06-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302/34 – Offence of Murder – Common Intention – Appeal is against the judgment and order of acquittal – Held, informant, P.W.11 himself has taken contradictory stand by not supporting his version as was recorded by him by disclosing name , his son and subsequently taking the name of respondents on disclosure being made by P.W.8, that cannot be said to be minor contradiction in nature and if in that circumstances, learned trial Court has come to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove charge beyond all shadow of doubts, which according to Court considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
The instant appeal is against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.07.2012 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in S.T. No.412/04 arising out of Bengabad P.S. Case No.58/04 corresponding to G.R. No.1165/04, whereby and whereunder, the respondent nos.2 and 3, namely, Manoj Paswan and Naresh Paswan respectively have been acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution version, as per the first information report reads as under:-
As per the fardbeyan of Badri Turi recorded by the then S.I. cum officer-in-charge of Bengabad Police Station on 08.07.2004 at about 11:00 a.m. at Fulwatand Near Railway bridge no.26 that his second son Ramgobind Turi, aged about 22 years had been working in the State of Kerala for two years and on 05.07.2004, Ramgobind Turi had made a telephonic information that he would arrive at this home on 08.07.2004 at about 7:00 a.m. One Satya Narayan Singh, son of Ishwari Singh, had informed his co-villagers that in the night on 07.07.2004 at about 10:00 p.m. while he himself along with his maternal brothers, Nakul Singh and Ramgobind Turi (deceased) were on the way from Madhupur to Maheshmunda Station and thereafter they started to move their house. Meanwhile, near Fulwatand, light of torch came towards them with some unnatural sound then he and his maternal brother Nakul Singh managed to escape leaving behind Ramgobind Turi there.
In the night, when Ramgobind Turi could not reach his house, then a suspicion arose and the informant along with his family members proceeded to search out for his son near Fulwatand, they saw the dead body of his son near Karaunj tree on village road near railway station on Madhupur-Sijuwa village. The neck of his son was found deeply cut from left side with a sharp cutting weapon alongwith some injuries of sharp cutting weapon on left shoulder. Sign of some barood (explosive substance) on his chest and rexin made black bag containing articles of him was found lying there on the ground.
It has further been alleged in the fardbeyan that he had some land dispute with his co-villagers Ramnath Rai whose son Murari Rai and Bhola rai had threatened the labours while the labours were engaged in digging earth on the land and they had warned them. On 07.07.2004, when his brother Naresh Turi was coming from Madhupur, near Maheshmunda pool no.26, the said Ramnath Rai told him regarding measurement of land. Therefore, he has full suspicion upon Ramnath Rai, Murari Rai and Bhola Rai for committing murder of his son as the information about arrival of his son was well within the knowledge of Ramnath Rai.
Thereafter, the FIR was lodged in the name of Ramnath Rai, Murari and Bhola Rai under Section 302/34 of the IPC. The investigation started and after due investigation, the charge sheet was submitted and the cognizance has been taken and the charges were framed against respondent no.2 (Manoj Paswan) and respondent no. 3 (Naresh Paswan) and they have pleaded not guilty, thereafter, the trial has commenced.
The prosecution has examined altogether 11 witnesses.
P.W.1, namely, Jahir Mian happens to be hearsay cum post eye witness of the incident.
P.W.2, namely, Naresh Turi, is uncle of the deceased cum eye witness of pre-situations of the incident.
P.W.3, namely, Ganesh Turi, is the brother of the deceased.
P.W.4, namely, Pitambar Yadav, is the hearsay cum post eye witness of the incident.
P.W.5, namely, Jitan Mahto, and P.W.6, namely, Gopal Yadav are also the hearsay witnesses.
P.W.7, the Doctor, namely, Vishwanath Das, the then M.O. Sadar Hospital Giridih had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Ramgobind Turi.
P.W.8, namely, Satya Narain Singh is the eye witness of the incident.
P.W.9, namely, Suman Giri Nag, is the Investigating Officer of the case who has partly investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet.
P.W.10, namely, Ramesh Kumar Singh, is also Police Off
Himachal Pradesh Administration vs. Shri Om Prakash reported in (1972) 1 SCC 249
Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 454
Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan
SupremeToday
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in testimonies undermine the case.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere circumstantial evidence and delayed FIR weaken the case, necessitating independent corroboration.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The conviction cannot stand if eyewitness testimony is contradictive and lacks corroboration, underscoring the necessity for reliability in criminal prosecutions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and material contradictions in evidence can render ey....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.