SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 768

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Mrs. Lina Shakti.
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash.
For the Informant : Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sinha.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 302, 302/149 - Criminal appeal against conviction and life imprisonment of appellants for murder - Conviction upheld by re-evaluating evidence and finding of common intention - Delay in FIR lodged explained by informant's immediate efforts to rescue son post-attack. (Paras 1, 11, 70)

(B) Validity of FIR - Initial fardbeyan admitted but contents denied; second FIR based on written information accepted as proper - Prior FIR not lodged against known assailants due to informant's health and confusion. (Paras 11, 24, 70)

(C) Dying declaration - Victim named assailants before death; credibility supported by witness testimonies and consistent reviews - Declarations acknowledged as substantive evidence. (Paras 47-49, 70)

Facts of the case:
This appeal arises from the conviction of Suresh Sahu and Aditya Sahu for the murder of Gajendra Prasad Gupta, resulting from animosity due to a prior land dispute leading to the assault on 11th May 1990 during a village fair. The victim, after being attacked, identified the assailants before succumbing to injuries. (Paras 1-3)

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence of conspiracy and intent in the actions of the accused, leading to the conclusion of their guilt. The appellate court reaffirmed this conclusion based on witness credibility, forensic evidence, and procedural correctness in FIR submission. (Paras 70, 71)

Issues: Primary issues included the validity of the FIR based on delayed reporting, as well as the sufficiency of the dying declaration and its corroborative testimonies. (Paras 11, 70)

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court emphasized the necessity of assessing the credibility of eyewitness accounts alongside procedural correctness, ultimately affirming that the prosecution met its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the defence failed to establish the alibi satisfactorily. (Paras 70, 72)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld with modification of sentence to include a fine. (Paras 71, 72)

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

                          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                          1
                          2
                          3
                          4
                          5
                          6
                          7
                          8
                          9
                          10
                          11
                          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                          supreme today icon
                          logo-black

                          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

                          qr

                          Scan Me!

                          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                          whatsapp-icon Back to top