IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RATNAKER BHENGRA, AMBUJ NATH, JJ.
Khaito Oraon son of late Inderdeo Oraon – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 66 of 1999 (R) with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 98 of 1999 (R)
Decided on : 15-12-2023
Assault - Murder - Indian Penal Code - Section 302/149 - Summary: The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution and the arguments of the appellants. It highlighted inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies, doubts regarding the manner of occurrence, and the failure to prove the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt. The court ultimately set aside the judgment of conviction and discharged the appellants from liability.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants appealed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case was based on the fardbeyan of the informant, stating that the appellants assaulted the deceased and caused his death. Eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence were presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies, doubts regarding the manner of occurrence, and failure to prove the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination was not examined, and the cause of death was not conclusively established.
Issues: Inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies, doubts regarding the manner of occurrence, failure to prove the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the cause of death in a criminal trial and the necessity of examining the doctor who conducted the postmortem. It highlighted the primacy of oral evidence but noted that medical evidence becomes relevant when it makes the oral testimony improbable.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, discharging the appellants from liability.
JUDGMENT :
Ratnaker Bhengra, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 22nd February 1999 and the order of sentence dated 24th February 1999 passed by the 2nd learned Additional Sessions Judge-Gumla in connection with Sessions Trial No. 294 of 1996 holding the appellants guilty for the offence under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo RI for life.
3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan dated 29.07.1996 of the informant PW-3 Rajmati Kumari stating therein that she along with her father Ramsevak and cousin brother Ram Bilas Sahu went to Mahuwatoli Bazar for selling Mahuwa at 04:00 pm on 28.7.1996. At the bazar a dispute took place between her cousin brother Ram Bilas Sahu and the appellants. At 06:00 p.m. while she along with her father and cousin brother Ram Bilas were returning to their house and at 06:30 p.m. when they were on the kachha road some distance from Deepatoli on north side, all the appellants were standing there with hockey sticks started assaulting Ram Bilas Sahu. When her father went to rescue him, the appellants also assaulted him by fist and slaps and also by hockey sticks and threw her father on the ground and started pressing his chest. Thereafter, appellants dragged her father in the field, and assaulted him and fled away. Informant came to her house and informed her mother. Then, they came to Deepatoli and with the help of people of Deepatoli carried her father on cot to her house. Informant further stated that at that time her father was alive and died after some time in the house.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Ghaghra PS case no. 63/1996 dated 29.07.1996, was registered against the appellants under section 147/302 of IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants under section 302/149 of IPC and trial was held. At the conclusion of trial appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, hence, this appeal.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses out of whom PW-3 Rajmati Kumari, is the informant of the case. PW-1 Malti Devi and PW-2 Hirain Devi, are the wives of the deceased; PW-6 Kalawati Kumari is the another daughter of the deceased, PW-5 Ram Bilas Sao is the nephew of the deceased; PW-4 Ishwar Sahu and PW-7 Lal Mohan Sao are the witnesses to the inquest report; PW-8 Bindeshwari Sharma is the Investigating officer of the case and PW-9 Bal Krishna Singh,who is an advocate clerk.
6. PW-3 Rajmati Kumari, the informant of this case and she had stated in her evidence that on 28.7.1996 they had gone to Mahuwatoli bazar for selling Mahuwa. In the bazar a quarrel had taken place with her brother and the appellants. At 6 p.m. when they were returning to their house and when they reached near Deepatoli, appellants surrounded them and they began to assault her brother. When her father tried to rescue, all the accused persons left his brother and began to assault her father by hockey sticks and fists. They threw her father on the ground and pressed his chest by leg. They raised halla but no one came. Thereafter, they dragged her father to the field. She along with her brother came to the village and informed her mother and sister. They returned to the place of occurrence and informant's father was carried on cot to the house. Informant further stated that his father was gasping then he died.
7. PW-5 Ram Bilas Sao stated that on the date of occurrence he along with his uncle Ramsevak Sahu and sister Raj Mati Kumari went to Mahuwatoli Bazar. He demanded Rs. 10 from one Jitia Gope in the market which he had given to him earlier as loan but he did not return the same and thereafter quarrel took place between him and the accused persons. At a
Kuriya and another v. State of Rajasthan
Point of law: If direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable, the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants caused the victim's death, leading to their acquittal.
The admissibility of documents and witness testimonies is crucial in establishing a case beyond reasonable doubt.
In criminal cases, consistent and credible evidence is essential; discrepancies and reliance on related witnesses can undermine the prosecution's case and result in acquittal.
Criminal Law - Witnesses - Reliability of - Benefit of doubt - Evidence of PW-1 (informant) and PW-2 who are chance witnesses and claimed themselves to be eye witnesses of incident. Their evidence do....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
Point of law: Sometimes even falsehood is given an adroit appearance of truth, so that truth disappears and falsehood comes on the surface.
Direct eyewitness testimony can establish guilt in murder cases, supported by physical evidence, where minor discrepancies do not diminish credibility.
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.