Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 848

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, AMBUJ NATH, JJ.

Pramila Devi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1957 of 2017
Decided On : 05-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of reliable and consistent evidence.

Headnote:
Murder - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 201, Section 34 - The judgment discusses the evidence presented in the case and the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It highlights the contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, the lack of eye-witnesses to the assault, and the unreliable nature of the evidence. The court concludes that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and sets aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the murder of a child based on a written report submitted by the father of the deceased, alleging threats from the accused. The prosecution presented evidence from witnesses and a post-mortem report.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was unreliable and untrustworthy, with contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence, presence of eye-witnesses, and the motive for the alleged murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the lack of eye-witnesses and the contradictions in the testimonies as key factors in its decision.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the lower court were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 04.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 07.09.2017 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge IV, Civil Courts, Giridih in S. T. No. 35 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

3. A written report was submitted by Raju Yadav to Officer Incharge, Birni Police Station wherein it has been stated that on 31.07.2012 at about 2:00 P.M., he was working in his agricultural field when he heard some commotion and the villagers had informed him that someone had committed the murder of his child Sonu Yadav. On hearing this, he rushed to his house and found his son dead. It has been alleged that earlier threats were given by Suleman Mian, Lekho Baitha, Islam Mian and Pramila Devi that within one week his son will be eliminated and he was of the belief that these persons had committed the murder of his son.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Birni P. S. Case No. 107 of 2012 was instituted under Sections 302/201/34 of Indian Penal Code against four accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Pramila Devi (Appellant) while investigation continued against the others. After cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where it was registered as S. T. No. 35 of 2013. Charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. which was read over and explained to her in Hindi to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case.

P.W. 1 – Churia Devi has deposed that the incident is of 7 months back in between 1-1:30 P.M., when she was in her house and her son Sonu Yadav had come from the school and had his food, after which he went towards the house of Pramila Devi to answer the call of nature. When the tutor of his son had come, she started searching for him and went towards the house of Habib Mian. She saw Pramila Devi taking away her son in her lap and when Pramila Devi was confronted, she threw her son and fled away. She found her son dead and there was injury on his neck suggestive of it having been pressed. When she raised alarm, the villagers and her husband had arrived. The police thereafter had come and sent the body of the child for autopsy. She has stated that the reason for the occurrence was that Pramila Devi wanted to purchase the land which was adjoining to her house. Before this incident, her another son Jitendra was pushed by Pramila from the roof which resulted in his death.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had narrated the entire incident to her husband. The land dispute between them is going on for the last 10-15 years. She has further deposed that the police has not recorded her statement. The land which Pramila Devi wanted to purchase was in the name of the parent-in-law of this witness. She had not instituted any case when her son Jitendra had died. She also had land dispute with Suleman Mian, Lekho Baitha and Islam Mian. She had gone out alone in search of her son Sonu Yadav and at that point of time, her parents-in-law and husband were inside the house.

P.W. 2 – Mainwa Devi has deposed that on the date of occurrence, she was in the house when her daughter-in-law has disclosed that Sonu had gone to answer the call of nature, but he had not returned. When she went towards the house of Pramila Devi for search of her grand-son, she saw Pramila Devi going towards the backside of the house at which she called her daughter-in-law Churia Devi. Wh