IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JJ.
Ratan Horo, S/o. Late Paulus Horo - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.281 of 2013
Decided On : 18-09-2024
JUDGMENT :
Ananda Sen, J.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State at length.
2. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 25.07.2006 and order of sentence dated 28.07.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 471 of 1986 whereby and whereunder learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti convicted the appellant under Sections 452/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for life under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and RI for 7 years under Section 452 of the IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are no materials to convict this appellant in this case. It has been submitted that the entire occurrence had taken place at the dead of night and admittedly there was no source of light in which one could identify this appellant. So far as the identification is concerned PW3 could not be believed as the said PW3 during investigation did not narrate before the investigating officer that he had identified this appellant in the light of torch when the occurrence had taken place. There is no other witness who had seen this appellant committing the offence nor has seen this appellant in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. He submits that on this basis the appellant should be acquitted.
4. The learned counsel for the State submits that PW3 is an injured witness who was assaulted by this appellant. It is this appellant who had entered the room and had committed murder of three persons only to take revenge. PW2 is an eye-witness who had seen the occurrence and the assailants were known to her thus there is no question of mistaken identity.
5. The case of the prosecution based on the fardbeyan of Baghrai Munda (informant) is that brother of the informant Dasrath Munda purchased one Tamarind tree from Joseph Horo. On 07.04.1986 Dasrath Munda went to collect fruit of tamarind and stayed in the house of Josheph Horo when in the night three accused murdered Dasrath Munda, Pyari Horo and Sushma Horo. Nirmal Horo, son of Joshep Horo was injured in the occurrence.
6. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302/307/452/120B of the Indian Penal.
7. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on record cognizance was taken and case was committed to Court of Session who transferred the case to 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti where charges were framed under Sections 452/302/120B and 307/120B of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded.
8. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 4 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who are:-
ii. PW2 :- Sunita Horo
iii. PW3 :- Nirmal Horo
iv. PW4 :- Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sandilya
9. PW1 (Bishwa Munda) has stated that the occurrence is of 19 years and 2/3 months earlier. It was Tuesday when he was collecting mahua in his village when some students returning from the school informed him that in the house of Josheph Horo three murders have been committed and one boy was injured. On reaching with other villagers he had seen his brother Dasrath Munda’s dead body in the ground whose head was cut from the side of ear. Dead body of Pyari Horo was also there whose wrist was cut. He also saw dead body of Sushma Horo which was lying on the ground. The injured Nirmal Horo was sent to Bariyatu. He stated that they have taken three dead bodies to the Khunti hospital for their postmortem. Nirmal Mahto after returning the village stated that Ratan Horo, Panti Kujur, Ashok Kujur has killed Dasrath, Pyari, Sushma and injured him as one month earlier Ratan’s father was killed and they are taking revenge.
PW2 (Sunita Horo) stated that on 7/8-04-1986 in the night at about 10:00 PM Dashrath Munda, Pyari Horo, Sushma Horo, Niral Horo, Anita Horo, Jidan Horo and she herself was sleeping in the house when three persons after breaking the door entered the house and killed
AI
The testimonies of injured witnesses are given greater weight in establishing guilt, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The testimony of injured witnesses is highly credible, and direct evidence can establish guilt without needing to prove motive.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC can be upheld on the reliable testimony of a single eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence.
In criminal cases, lack of medical evidence and reasonable doubt necessitate acquittal on serious charges, while lesser charges may still stand.
Direct evidence from credible eyewitnesses is sufficient for conviction under Section 302 IPC, and motive is not essential in such cases.
A conviction cannot be upheld if the prosecution fails to establish the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, compounded by unreliable testimonies and contradictory medical evidence.
Point of Law : Any outsider or stranger committing a crime of murder, in which event, identification of assailant becomes very critical and crucial but in light of evidences as brought on record, ide....
Point of law: Offence of Murder – Chain of circumstances proved – Common intention – Conviction justified.
Court overturned murder conviction citing doubts about witness credibility, lack of corroborating evidence, and reliance on confession without independent corroboration.
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.