IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Suresh Sahu and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.150 of 1994 (R)
Decided On : 10-02-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details of appellants for homicide. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. grounds for the appeal against conviction. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. rebuttal of defenses and assessment of witness credibility. (Para 12 , 21 , 31 , 45) |
| 4. importance of first fir and standard of proof. (Para 25 , 26 , 68) |
| 5. final ruling and sentencing of the appellants. (Para 70 , 72 , 73) |
JUDGMENT :
(Subhash Chand, J.) :-
Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.
1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants against impugned Judgment of conviction dated 30th August, 1994 and Order of sentence dated 31st August, 1994 passed by the 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No.128 of 1991, whereby, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 120-B, 302 and 302/149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under the aforesaid offence. Further all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant—Rameshwar Sahu had given the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that on 11th May, 1990 he along with his son—Gajendra Prasad Gupta had gone to village Jhinjhri in a Jatra fair for selling sweets. The informant, his son, villagers—Ashok Sahu, Khakhndu Sahu and Jatan Sahu proceeded for their home from Jatra at 7:30 o’ clock of evening and on the way, when they reached to village Dhumphu four to five persons armed with lathi and hockey came there. One of them stopped the cycle of his son by inserting the hockey stick in the wheel of the same. All of them caught hold of his son and took him at one side. The informant and other who had accompanied him also made effort to rescue him but all the accused persons criminally intimidated them. All the accused persons assaulted his son and his son was crying not to kill him addressing the name Aditya and Suresh. The informant was too old and was having weak eye sight, so he could not rescue his son at the place of occurrence. When his son stopped crying, all accused persons fled away. He found his son lying in pool of blood. The blood was oozing from his forehead and other parts of body. On being asked his son told him that it was Suresh, Aditya and five to six unknown persons, who had assaulted him. His son was crying, however, he took his son to RMCH, Ranchi where he died on 12th May, 1990. After postmortem, the dead body was brought at the house and same was cremated. A case was pending between his son and his nephew Suresh and Aditya. The reason of the same is that there was land in his name and his brothers which was acquired by the Central Coalfields Limited and in lieu of acquisition of land, Suresh and Aditya were given job and no job was given to his son, therefore, his son had filed the case and on account of this animosity Aditya and Suresh along with five to six unknown persons had committed the murder of his son.
3. On this, written information, the Case Crime No.43 of 1990 was registered against the accused Suresh Sahu, Aditya Sahu and five to six unknown persons for the offence under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 120-B and 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE at Mandar police station, sub-division Sadar Ranchi. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused Suresh Sahu and Aditya Sahu for the offence under Section 147 , 148, 149, 120-B and 302 of the I.P.C. before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, who took the cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge.
4. The trial court framed charge against the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and Section 120-B of the I.P.C. and they denied the charge framed against them and claimed to face the trial.
5. On behalf of the prosecuti
Surajdeo Oza and others v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1505
Rafique alias Rauf and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 121
Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay
Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay
Cherlopalli Cheliminabi Saheb v. State of A.P. (2003) 2 SCC 571 : 2003 SCC(Cri) 659
Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) 12 SCC 277 : (2011) 1 SCC(Cri) 352
Sri Bhagwan v. State of U.P.(2013) 12 SCC 137 : (2012) 11 Scale 734
Munshi Prasad and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in (2002) 1 SCC 351
Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 166 : 1981 SCC(Cri) 379 : AIR 1981 SC 911
Jayantibhai Bhenkaarbhai v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2002 SC 3569
Vijay Pal v. State (GNCT) of Delhi reported in AIR 2015 SC 1495
Shaikh Sattar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cri.) 906
Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 8 SCC 18 : 2003 SCC(Cri) 186
Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2003) 2 SCC 266
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor AIR 1925 PC 1 : 26 Cri LJ 431
Mannam Venkatadari v. State of A.P. (1971) 3 SCC 254 : 1971 SCC(Cri) 479 : AIR 1971 SC 1467
Nethala Pothuraju v. State of A.P. (1992) 1 SCC 49 : 1992 SCC(Cri) 20 : AIR 1991 SC 2214
Ram Tahal v. State of U.P. (1972) 1 SCC 136 : 1972 SCC(Cri) 80 : AIR 1972 SC 254
T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in AIR 2001 SC 2637
Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala
Harijan Jivrajbhai Badhabhai v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2016 SC 2376
Ramesh Harijan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) 5 SCC 777
Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643 : 2003 SCC(Cri) 1697 : AIR 2003 SC 3617
State of U.P. vs. Krishna Master and Ors. Reported in AIR 2010 SC 3071
Neelam Bahal and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2010) 2 SCC (Cri.) 1025
Prem Prakash @ Lillu and Another vs. State of Haryana reported in (2011) 3 SCC (Cri.) 463
Tara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1991 SC 63
Bihari Rai vs. The State of Bihari (now Jharkhand) reported in (2008) 15 SCC 778
Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 6 SCC 710
Paparambaka Rosamma v. State of A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 695 : 1999 SCC(Cri) 1361
Koli Chunilal Savji v. State of Gujarat (1999) 9 SCC 562 : 2000 SCC(Cri) 432
Ravi Chander v. State of Punjab (1998) 9 SCC 303 : 1998 SCC(Cri) 1004
The Court upheld convictions under IPC sections for attempted murder and assault, emphasizing the weight of eyewitness and medical testimony, and affirming the principle of common intention among mul....
(1) Common intention – An act would mean and include other acts along with it – Section 34 IPC creates a deeming fiction by infusing and importing a criminal act constituting an offence committed by ....
The court confirmed that related eyewitnesses can provide reliable testimony in murder cases when corroborated by medical evidence, emphasizing that evidence must be assessed for credibility rather t....
Common intention requires proof of a prior agreement to commit an offense, with liability under Section 34 based on shared intent and concerted action among accused.
The court clarified that common intention under Section 34 can arise spontaneously during the commission of an act, and upheld the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of members of an unlawful assembly under the Indian Penal Code, particularly the application of Sections 141, 143, 144, 146, and 149 ....
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.