IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Dinesh Kumar, son of Puneshwar Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 18 of 2022
Decided on : 05-10-2023
Acquittal Appeal - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Sections 364-A, 365, 386, 379, 307 read with section 34 - The judgment discusses the allegations of abduction, torture, and ransom demand against the accused. The court disbelieved the prosecution's evidence and found that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the importance of the First Information Report, the delay in lodging it, and the credibility of the witnesses. The accused was acquitted of all alleged charges.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of abduction, torture, and ransom demand against the accused. The informant claimed to have been forcibly retained, tortured, and demanded ransom by the accused. A First Information Report was lodged after a delay of about 38 days.
Finding of the Court:
The court disbelieved the prosecution's evidence, finding that the allegations were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the importance of the First Information Report, the delay in lodging it, and the credibility of the witnesses. The accused was acquitted of all alleged charges.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, the delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the reliability of the witnesses' testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of the First Information Report, the unexplained delay in lodging it, and the credibility of the witnesses. It also highlighted the need for corroborative evidence and the caution required in evaluating related witnesses' testimonies.
Final Decision: The accused was acquitted of all alleged charges due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the lack of credibility in the witnesses' testimonies.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Ashok Tiwary @ Munna Tiwary who was put on trial in ST Case No.57 of 2021 on the charge under sections 364-A, 365, 386, 379 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been acquitted of the aforesaid criminal charges by a judgment dated 12th April 2022 rendered by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, at Godda.
2. Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Singh who is the informant of Godda (Town) PS Case No.235 of 2019 being aggrieved of the judgment dated 12th April 2022 passed in ST Case No.57 of 2021 has filed the present acquittal appeal by virtue of proviso to section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. A First Information Report was lodged on 14th September 2019 under sections 364-A, 365, 386, 379 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Ashok Tiwary @ Munna Tiwary, Chikku Choudhary, Sonu Choudhary, Annu Singh, Rahul Sah, Amit Tiwary, Abhay Kumar and Pappu Jha. In the written report given to the officer-in-charge of Godda (Town) PS, the informant made serious allegations of his abduction and assault with the butt of a pistol by Munna Tiwary and an attempt by the other accused to strangulate him with gamcha. According to the informant, Munna Tiwary called him at his house on 6th August 2019 and inquired and asked him about Rs.2 crores. He and the other accused tortured him the whole night and took his signature over a blank cheque-book and 15 blank letter-heads. In the morning, Munna Tiwary dumped him in a red-color Bolero and brought him to the house of Pappu Jha and made a call to his daughter at mobile no. 9661648273 and asked her to discuss with her family about payment of ransom. Munna Tiwary made a call from mobile no. 7008472800 to his wife also at her mobile no. 6201617741 and demanded Rs.50 lakh as ransom. He brought him to Godda on 7th August 2019 and released him around 08.00 PM the same evening. In his written report, the informant claimed that his Bolero bearing no. JH01 BG8201 was forcibly retained by Munna Tiwary and, that, he was in possession of the call recordings of the conversation with Munna Tiwary. The informant further stated that he was so frightened that he did not come out of the house for about one month and, in the meantime, Munna Tiwary took away all vehicles, machines, trailers, etc.
4. A chargesheet was laid after the investigation against the above-named accused persons and vide Chargesheet No.70 of 2020 dated 30th April 2020 and the supplementary Chargesheet No. 426 of 2020 dated 5th December 2020 they were sent up for trial. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under sections 436-A, 365, 386, 379, 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and by an order dated 20th July 2021 committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. As the trial proceedings would reveal, the records were received in the Court of Sessions on 27th July 2021 and made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-V for framing of the charge. On 11th January 2022, the record of Munna Tiwary was separated as the other accused were found absconding. On the same day, charges on five counts viz. under section 364-A read with section 34, section 365 read with section 34, section 386 read with section 34, section 379 read with section 34 and section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed and the contents of the charges were read over and explained in Hindi to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Six witnesses were produced by the prosecution and the statement of Munna Tiwary was recorded on 6th April 2022. The defense set up by Munna Tiwary is that he spoke to the informant for business purposes and such conversations were used to fabricate a false case against him. He laid documentary evidence such as a certified copy of Godda (Town) PS Case No.270 of 2019 vide Ext. A, a certified copy of Godda (Town) PS Case No.258 of 2020 vide Ext. B, the attendance report vide Ext. X of Kumari Juli Jha from
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808
Masalti v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202
AI
The judgment underscores the importance of the First Information Report, the need for corroborative evidence, and the caution required in evaluating related witnesses' testimonies in criminal cases.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of consistent and reliable witness testimony, and the necessity to foll....
The prosecution must substantiate charges with consistent, reliable evidence; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Credibility and reliability of witness testimonies are critical in criminal convictions; lack of corroboration and non-examination of key witness can lead to reasonable doubt.
Power of scrutiny exercisable by the High Court under Section 378 Cr.P.C. should not be routinely invoked where the view formed by the trial court was a “possible view.
The significance of the delay in lodging the First Information Report, the evidence of injured witnesses, and the discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence were central to the court's decision.
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.