IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RATNAKER BHENGRA, J.
Devi Sharan Sharma, S/o Vijay Kr. Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 308 of 2010
Decided on : 26-11-2021
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under sections 363 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code - [IPC 363, IPC 419] - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence were set aside, and the appellant was discharged of the liability of bail bond.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under sections 363 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code based on the prosecution's case that he forcefully took the informant to a different location and threatened to kill him. However, the informant's testimony raised doubts about the prosecution's story.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The informant's contradictory statements, the failure to cross-examine a key witness, and the lack of evidence from the investigating officer led to the decision to set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution's case, the reliability of witness testimony, and the failure to follow proper procedures in the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving charges beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the need for consistent and reliable witness testimony. The failure to cross-examine a key witness and the lack of evidence from the investigating officer were also crucial factors in the decision.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence were set aside, and the appellant was discharged of the liability of bail bond.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Sadish Ujwal Beck, the learned Amicus Curiae as well as Mr. Sardhu Mahto, the learned APP.
2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 10.03.2010 and the order of sentence dated 11.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VI Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Sessions Case No. 65/2007, whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted under sections 363 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for two years with a fine of Rs. 5000/-under section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years under section 419 of IPC. In default of payment of fine appellant was further sentenced to undergo six months and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the fardbeyan dated 29.11.05 of the informant Krishna Giri (PW-2) aged about 15 years is 8th that informant is a student of class in Rajasthan Vidya Mandir, Aambegan and his father is an electrician. Informant had come to Sakchi bazaar and at about 6:30 p.m. in the evening, he was standing near the Eye Hospital, Sakchi, waiting for tempo to go home. There a Maruti car bearing no. JH 05 C-5265 was parked and in the car two men aged about 28-30 years were sitting. Informant asked them whether they would go to Dimna? Then, they got him seated in the vehicle. They started to drive the vehicle in another direction, on this informant asked, why they were going to another side as he has to go to Dimna. On this, one person, who was wearing a thick glass said we are reporters of CBI and said “saala tum ladki ki dalaali karta hai tumko barbaad kar denge”. On this, the informant started crying and they drove the vehicle here and there. At about 8:00 O’clock in the night, they took the vehicle to Essar Petrol Pump at Adityapur and told that they are buying petrol and they would burn him in the forest of Chandil. Saying this, one man, who was wearing thick glass, went to buy petrol. The other one who was wearing a white coloured shirt and trouser had kept him in the vehicle. In the meantime, out of fear, informant started shouting ‘bachao bachao’ and on this some people gathered there. Then, the person came carrying petrol and threatened people that they are CBI personnels and when he was asked to show his identity card or revolver, he replied that the same is deposited before the S.P. of Tata and they are carrying out an important enquiry. During this exchange of words, the other person fled away. Meanwhile, looking at the patrolling vehicle, people shouted then the police arrived and on enquiry the glass wearing man told his name as Devi Sharan Sharma and he told the name of his friend, who fled as Rintu.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Sakchi P.S. Case No. 275 of 2005 dated 29.11.2005 was registered against the appellant under Section 367, 419 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation police submitted charge sheet under section 419, 367 and 504 of IPC against the appellant and cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed under sections 367 and 419 of IPC and trial was held and at the conclusion of the trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
5. Prosecution in support of its case has examined altogether four witnesses out of whom PW-2 Krishna Kumar Giri is the informant of the case and he was declared hostile; PW-1 Mahavir Shilanand Kindu is the Investigating Officer of the case; PW-3 is Md. Shamim Quraisi and PW-4 is Md. Naeem.
6. PW-2 Krishna Kumar Giri is the informant of the case. PW-2 has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence he was at Sakchi. PW-2 further stated that he asked Devi Sharan Sharma whether he is going towards Dimna Road and he sat in the Maruti car. Devi Sharan Sharma took the informant to the Adityapur and stopped near Adityapur petrol pump. Accused said that they w
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of consistent and reliable witness testimony, and the necessity to foll....
The prosecution must substantiate charges with consistent, reliable evidence; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in testimonies undermine the case.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to provide convincing and reliable evidence to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
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.