Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Md. Sahabuddin – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 357 of 2012
Decided On : 20-03-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - HOMICIDE - IPC Sections 304 Part II, 34 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which pertains to punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and Section 34, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The court interpreted these sections to establish that the appellants acted with a common intention to cause harm to the deceased, resulting in his death. The evidence presented, particularly the testimonies of witnesses, was analyzed to determine the culpability of the appellants, leading to their conviction under these sections.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the death of Ajay Ram, who was allegedly lynched after being caught committing burglary in the house of one of the accused. The incident occurred on the night of 14/15.10.1996, and the deceased succumbed to his injuries after being assaulted by a mob, including the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died a homicidal death due to multiple injuries inflicted by the appellants. The testimonies of the witnesses, particularly PW-2, were deemed credible and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing the appellants' direct involvement in the assault.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the identification of the assailants, the reliability of witness testimonies, and whether the appellants acted in a manner that constituted culpable homicide under the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a single reliable witness can suffice for conviction, provided their testimony is credible and corroborated by other evidence. The court emphasized that the presence of a mob does not absolve individuals of responsibility if their actions can be distinctly identified as contributing to the crime.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, with a modified sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.
1.1 This Criminal appeal is directed Judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2012 and order of sentence dated 19.03.2012, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad, in S.T. Case No. 286 of 1998, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, further to undergo SI for one month.
2. As per prosecution, one Ajay Ram was allegedly caught while committing house burglary in the house of accused, Md. Sahabuddin in the intervening night of 14/15.10.1996 who was lynched by the appellants.
3. As per fardbeyan of Santoshi Ram recorded on 15.10.1996 his son, Ajay Ram was living in a rented house of one Rameshwar Saw and was working in a shop named STAR DECORATOR situated at Dari Mohalla. On the said night, his son had entered into the house of Md. Sahabuddin and was caught by him and his brother, Md. Saukat Ali and he was assaulted by them. On hulla, about 200-300 people gathered there and all of them started beating up his son. Consequently, he sustained critical injury and thereafter, Md. Sahabuddin and Md. Saukat Ali and handed him to Bank More Police Station and from there, he was referred for treatment to Popular Nursing Home by the Police. During course of his treatment, his son succumbed to his injuries.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, FIR being Bank More (Dhanbad) P.S. Case No. 766 of 1996 was registered. Police on investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 304/ 34 IPC against (i) Md. Sahabuddin, (ii) Md. Saukat Ali, (iii) Md. Shamim, (iv) Md. Jahangir, (v) Md. Sagir, (vi) Sultan Mian and (vii) Md. Furkan @ Bablu and they were put on trial. Sultan Mian died during trial and proceeding against him was dropped.
5. Altogether ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents, including the carbon copy of post-mortem report have been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. The Statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Defence of innocence has been pleaded by the accused persons.
6. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant no. 1 in his argument, has made specific reference to the deposition of Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma (PW-3) made at Para-3 of the cross-examination, wherein he has deposed that it was appellant/accused, Md. Sahabuddin, who had dissuaded the mob from assaulting the deceased. It is submitted that the appellants had tried to rescue the deceased from the mob, and after rescuing him had handed-over him to the Police Station and for no fault, he has been falsely implicated in the case.
7. Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the rest of the appellants submits that out of ten witnesses, PW-4 and PW-5 have turned hostile, and have not at all supported the case of the prosecution. The informant of the case has not been examined and has been withheld by the prosecution without any explanation for the same. Out of the material witnesses, only two witnesses claim to be the direct eye-witness, PW-2 and PW-3. Deposition of both these witnesses suffers from contradictions. PW-3 has not supported the case of the prosecution, however, he has not been declared hostile by the prosecution and, therefore, his deposition will have a binding effect on the prosecution. As per the testimony of this witness in Para-3, it was the mob that was assaulting the deceased and it was accused/appellant, Sahabuddin who rescued the boy from the mob. It has also come in the evidence that PW-1 and PW-2 were on inimical terms with accused/ appellant Sahabuddin and a proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P.C. was drawn.
8. PW-2 has deposed in Para-1 that when he went there, he saw that Ajay Ram was tied down in the hall and the appellants were assaulting him. In Para-15, the witness deposes that he had gone to the Second floor whic
AI
The judgment establishes that in cases of mob violence, individual culpability can still be determined based on credible witness testimony, and that the presence of a mob does not negate the responsi....
A single witness's testimony can only sustain a conviction if wholly reliable; the presence of multiple hostile witnesses necessitates rigorous evidence scrutiny and adherence to the principle of par....
Eyewitness testimony, even from an interested witness, can sustain a conviction if corroborated by credible evidence and circumstances.
A conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of a reliable witness, especially when corroborated by medical evidence, and the presence of adequate light at the scene can validate eyewitness id....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of murder and unlawful assembly beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
The testimony of relatives is not inherently suspect and can be reliable if corroborated by evidence, while conspiracy requires proof of prior agreement, which was lacking in this case.
Omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses to the investigating officer, which are significant and relevant to the case, can amount to material contradictions that affect the credibility of....
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
