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

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 572

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Jetha Kachhap - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 682 of 2022, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 570 of 2022
Decided On : 03-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.P. Roy, Amicus, Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P., Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP.

The court emphasized the necessity of credible evidence and reliable witness testimony for establishing guilt in criminal cases, leading to the reversal of the appellants' convictions.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 34, 120B - Arms Act - Section 27 - Conviction and sentence of appellants for murder set aside due to lack of credible evidence and material contradictions in witness testimonies. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and involvement of the appellants in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 13, 14, 15)

(B) Evidence - Credibility of witnesses - The testimonies of key witnesses were found unreliable due to inconsistencies and contradictions, leading to the conclusion that the trial court erred in convicting the appellants. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Manoj Mahto, with allegations of conspiracy and involvement of PLFI extremists. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses, which were later found to be contradictory.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence properly, leading to an unjust conviction.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitnesses and whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, emphasizing the need for reliable witness testimony in criminal cases.

Result: Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Above appellants have preferred the above captioned appeals assailing their conviction and sentence dated 07.05.2022 / 12.05.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 860 of 2013(A), arising out of Karra P.S. Case No.64 of 2011 (G.R. Case No.381 of 2011) registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act for committing murder of one Manoj Mahto, wherein, the appellant – Jetha Kachhap was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and appellant – Sanatan Swansi was held guilty for committing offence under Sections 302 / 34 of I.P.C. and both the appellants have been awarded sentence of imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. One Lakh for the offence punishable under sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant – Jetha Kachhap has been further sentenced to R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently with default stipulation in case of non-payment of fine.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The prosecution story as depicted in the F.I.R. lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of one Bigal Mahto (P.W.-2) recorded on 08.10.2011 at about 19:30 hours at Sawra Bazar near Yatri Shed stating therein that on 08.10.2011 at about 2:00 P.M., the informant went to Sawra Bazar for selling vegetables and installed his shop near the Yatri Shed. It is further alleged that at about 4:00 P.M., informant's son Manoj Mahto (deceased) and Jitendra Mahto (P.W.-6) arrived at the shop, meanwhile, one Pancham Mahto and one Munda boy of Village – Sawra approached there and asked to Manoj to enjoy Hariya, to which he declined, but they forcibly took Manoj with them and on suspicion, informant also followed them towards the Yatri Shed protesting the taking away of his son Manoj. It is further alleged that when the informant’s son along with aforesaid persons reached near the Yatri Shed, meanwhile, Jetha Kachhap (appellant in Cr.A.(D.B.) No. 682/2022), Jagran Munda, Sanatan Swansi (appellant in Cr.A.(D.B.) No. 570/2022) and two other unknown extremists also came out from a ditch and all of them surrounded Manoj and started firing over him. As a result of which, informant’s son fell down. The informant along with his younger son, Jitendra Mahto (P.W.-6) got scared and fled away towards their home. Thereafter, the informant informed the matter to police through telephonic message and after arrival of police at the place of occurrence, the informant again went to the place of occurrence. The informant has further disclosed that the motive behind the occurrence is that there was land dispute between informant and “fhufhera” brother of Pancham Mahto namely, Ramdhan Mahto and Somra Mahto, who have close contact with PLFI extremists. It is alleged that in the last week, Sunil Mahto, Son of Ramdhan Mahto and Prakash Mahto, Son of Somra Mahto had threatened to kill him, if he will go over the disputed land. Hence, all the accused persons under deep rooted conspiracy with the help of members of PLFI have killed the son of the informant by shooting.

3. On the basis of above informantion, Karra P.S. Case No. 64/2011 dated 08.10.2011 was registered for the offence under Sections 302/34, 120B of I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act against Jetha Kachhap, Jagran Munda, Sanatan Swansi, Barna Oraon, Pancham Mahto, Sunil Mahto, Prakash Mahto, one Munda boy and two unknown persons and charge of investigation was handed over to S.I. Subhchandra Jha (P.W.-7), who after conclusion of investigation submitted first charge sheet No. 74/2013 dated 30.09.2013 against accused Pancham Mahato, showing accused Jetha Kachhap, Sanatan Swansi and Barna Munda absconding. Later on, charge sheet was also submitted again

        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