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

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1582

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, JJ.
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Shiv Narayan Yadav @ Chhotka and Others – Respondents
Acquittal Appeal No. 9 of 2006
Decided On : 09-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vandana Bharti,
For the Respondents: Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, M.A. Niyazi, Prince Kumar, Sanjoy Piprawall, Sajid Yunus, Ayub Ansari

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302/34, 120B, and 27 of the Arms Act - Acquittal Appeal - The State of Jharkhand challenged the acquittal of several accused in connection with a murder case; the trial court held that while a motive existed, it could not equate motive with conspiracy. The prosecution's evidence was found insufficient to prove conspiracy or the commission of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of all accused by the trial Judge. (Paras 1, 7, 49, 56)

(B) Criminal Conspiracy - Proof needed - It was emphasized that conspiracy requires evidence of an explicit agreement to commit a crime, and mere suspicion without concrete corroboration is inadequate for conviction. (Paras 56, 62)

(C) Evidence - The court underscored the importance of corroborative evidence in proving confessions, particularly when several witnesses turned hostile, leading to doubts about the integrity of recoveries and confessions related to the accused. The trial Judge’s reliance on retracted confessions not supported by further corroborating material was deemed faulty. (Paras 48, 54)

(D) Judicial Review in Acquittal - The court determined that in appeals against acquittals, the appellate court must re-examine evidence and the trial Judge's findings but respects the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the accused until proven guilty. (Paras 10, 12) (E)

Result: The appeals were partly allowed, leading to the conviction of Chhotka, Dolly, Raju Podwal, and Mohan Gupta under sections 302/120B with life imprisonment, while other accused were acquitted for want of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

1. The State of Jharkhand has challenged the judgment dated 22nd December 2005 in Sessions Trial Nos. 17 of 2005 and 96 of 2005, by which Shiv Narayan Yadav @ Chhotka, P. Chhanda Rao @ Dolly, Md. Akhtar, Satpal Singh @ Mithu Paji, Raju Podwal @ Raju Das, Sushil Kumar Jha @ Pappu Jha, Mohan Gupta, and Ravi Chourasia have been acquitted from the charge framed against them under sections 302/34 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE for committing murder of P. Ratna Rao @ Joni in furtherance of common intention and conspiracy. Raju Podwal @ Raju Das has been acquitted also of the charge under section 27 of the ARMS ACT .

2. On 19th June 2004, at about 09:00 AM, P. Ramchandra Rao who is the father of Joni gave his fardbeyan before the officer-in-charge of Sitaramdera PS at his house situated at 22 New Layout within Sitaramdera PS. According to him, two boys one of whom was of average build came near his house and made some inquiry from Dolly and, in the meantime, the other boy fired shot at his son - the shooter was a tall boy. The assailants thereafter fled away towards the northern side on a motorcycle which was held by a third boy in starting position, just away from the place of occurrence. On the basis of his statement, Sitaramdera PS Case No. 41 of 2004 was lodged against unknown on the same day. The investigating officer prepared inquest report and collected blood-stained soil from the place of occurrence, blood stains from sheet cover of Maruti Esteem car, and the blood-stained shirt of the deceased. Shiv Narayan Yadav @ Chhotka and Dolly were arrested the same day and Chhotka made disclosures which unfolded the conspiracy hatched by him.

3. Soon thereafter, Md. Akhtar who according to the prosecution was standing with a motorcycle about 20 yards from the place of occurrence, was arrested on 25th June 2004. Later on, Mohan Gupta who is the person who came near Joni on the pretext of enquiring about an address was arrested on 1st July 2004, and on the same day he made disclosures before the police and on his pointing a blood-stained shirt and jeans pant were recovered from his house. Raju Podwal @ Raju Das who is the shooter was arrested on 11th October 2004 and on the basis of his confessional statement recorded around 02:40 PM on 11th October 2004, a county-made firearm was recovered from a house at Chayanagar concealed within the earth and a seizure memo was prepared in the presence of Dulal Chandra Karmar and Jugal Bhuiyan. He made another disclosure on 18th October 2004 on the basis of which a fired .315 bore cartridge was recovered in the presence of Vijay Sao and Deo Chand Pandit.

4. Dr. Lalan Chaudhary who conducted autopsy over the dead body found the following antemortem injuries on the person of Joni:

    (i) Semi-circular stitched wound of size 23.5 c.m. with 23 stitches over right side of temporal occipital scalp.

    (ii) Stitched wound of size 5 c.m. with five stitches over back of right ear between above injury.

    (iii) Blackening with charring of size 8 c.m. X 4 c.m. over right temporal scalp.

    (iv) Blackening and charring of size 4.5 cm. x 4 c.m. over right ear upper part.

5. In the opinion of doctor, the cause of death of Joni was firearm injuries in his head which were injury nos. (iii) and (iv). According to the doctor, the injuries nos. (i) and (ii) might have been caused by the Surgeon in course of the treatment. After the investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the aforementioned accused persons and they faced the trial on the charge under sections 302/34 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Raju Podwal was separately charged under section 27 of the ARMS ACT . A separate case vide Sitaramdera PS Case No. 79 of 2004 was also lodged against Raju Podwal under sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the ARMS ACT .

6. Fifteen witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove the aforesaid charges framed against the accused persons in Sessions Trial Nos. 17 of 2005 and 96 of 2005. The minor

                        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