Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Manja alias Kamruddin Mian Son of Late Malo Mian – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 484 of 1994 (DB)
Decided on : 27-02-2023
Section 374 - Criminal Procedure Code - 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act - The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is under consideration before this Court as to whether the trial Court while convicting the accused persons has committed any illegality or not.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of the deceased by exploding bombs. The prosecution relied on the testimony of witnesses, particularly P.W. 8 and P.W. 9, who were considered eye witnesses to the occurrence. The trial Court convicted the appellants based on this testimony.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the testimony of P.W. 8, a tender witness, was not admissible as the trial Court did not verify his intellectual capacity as required by Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court also noted discrepancies in the testimony of P.W. 9, the informant, and the lack of independent witnesses in a densely populated area. As a result, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellants.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of the testimony of P.W. 8, the reliability of the testimony of P.W. 9, and the lack of independent witnesses in a densely populated area.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need to verify the intellectual capacity of tender witnesses as per Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. It also highlighted the importance of corroborating the evidence of child witnesses and the need for independent witnesses in criminal cases.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence were quashed and set aside, and the appellants were acquitted and discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
The instant appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the Judgment of conviction dated 30th May, 1994 and Order of sentence dated 3rd August, 1994 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 220 of 1993 by which the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 3 and ten years under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case, as per fardbeyan of informant, which reads as under:
On 02.06.1992 at about 12.00 a.m. the informant (Hassain Ansari) with his younger brother Kabil Ansari and his father Makbul Mian (deceased) had gone to Bhalki Hatia on a bullock cart for selling various articles form their village and after selling the articles they were returning with unsold articles on bullock cart from the Hatia of their village. At about 8.00 p.m. when they reached northern slope in Gumura river three persons came near them and while using abusive language from their voice the informant identified one of them to be Bhikhu Mian and ordered to stop the bullock cart. It is alleged that in the torch light his younger brother and the informant had identified one of them to be Bhikhu Mian and they could not identify to other persons. Accused Bhikhu Mian ordered to assault meanwhile the father of informant who fled away in north direction but his father was chased by them and out of some distance of road towards northern side one bomb was hurled which created sound. Informant went towards his village Pokharia out of fear and there he heard two more sounds of explosion of bomb. The informant went to his village and informed the villagers that his father being murdered in explosion of bomb caused by the accused persons and then several villagers gathered there and came at Gumura River and found on the Southern bank of river the dead body of deceased-Makbul Mian in injured condition due to explosion of bombs.
It is also alleged that the motive of this occurrence is that one year earlier to the occurrence the deceased father had deposed in a bomb and theft case against accused Bhikhu Mian, Karamat Mian and Jamaluddin Mian and they were sent to jail in that case and after being released from the jail they were regularly threatening to murder informant’s father and his family members.
3. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, a formal F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons and the matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer, who after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons-appellants.
Thereafter the cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions wherefrom the case was received in the Court of learned 6th Additional Session Judge, Dumka for trial and disposal.
4. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 13 witnesses, namely, Munsi Hansda (P.W. 1); Ranjan Murmu (P.W. 2); Nabud Mian (P.W. 3); Jiwan Hansda (P.W. 4); Basir Mian (P.W. 5); Jaidhan Hansda (P.W. 6); Md. Asruddin (P.W. 7); Md. Kabil Ansari (P.W. 8); Md. Hassain Ansari (P.W. 9-informant); Dr. Sushil Kumar Marani (doctor) (P.W. 10); Mritunjay Jha (P.W. 11); Mehendra Pd. Gupta (P.W. 11) and Birendra Pd. Singh (P.W. 13).
5. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, in particular the testimony of P.W. 8 and P.W. 9, who have been c
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....
Murder - Testimony of sole child witness - There is no age limit fixed for a person to be a competent witness. A child of tender age can also be a competent witness.
The court established that the reliability of child witnesses must be carefully evaluated, and a conviction cannot be sustained on their testimony alone without corroborative evidence, especially whe....
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
