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) 932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N.Pathak, Navneet Kumar, JJ.
Kail Mian @ Nasruddin Mian son of Liyakat Mian - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1494 of 2005
Decided On : 27-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Seema Kashyap, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially when enmity exists, as mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 148, 307/149, 302/149 - Arms Act - Section 27 - Criminal Law Amendment Act - Section 17 - Conviction and sentencing of the appellant for multiple offenses including murder and attempted murder - The trial court's reliance on eyewitness testimony was questioned due to inconsistencies and lack of direct identification of the appellant - The prosecution failed to establish the appellant's involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 15, 31)

(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt - The presence of enmity between the parties necessitates careful scrutiny of witness testimonies to avoid wrongful conviction. (Paras 19, 30)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for his alleged involvement in a shooting incident that resulted in two deaths and one injury during a religious ceremony. The prosecution's case relied heavily on eyewitness accounts, which were later found to be inconsistent and lacking in direct evidence against the appellant. (Paras 2, 4, 28)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to connect the appellant to the crime, leading to the conclusion that the trial court had erred in its judgment. (Paras 31, 33)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 19, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere suspicion or enmity is insufficient for conviction; the prosecution must provide clear and convincing evidence linking the accused to the crime. (Paras 30, 31)

Result: The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

Challenge in the appeal:

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.08.2005 and order of sentence dated 17.08.2005 passed in Sessions Case No. 026 of 2005 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 062 of 2004 passed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Latehar whereby and whereunder the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 307/149, 302/149 of IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 148 of I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month under Section 27 of Arms Act, rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for two months under Section 307/149 of IPC and to go imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for six months under Section 302 of IPC and further directed by the Learned Trial Court that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

Prosecution Story:

2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of the Jaswant Singh (P.W.-5), whose statement was recorded by the A.S.I.-Kedar Rai of Latehar P.S. on 21.07.2004 at 10:20 Hours at Dihi-Murup Pitch Road in between the Villages: Tubaid and Ghor-gadha which is as under:

    (a) The informant (PW-5) stated that on 20.07.2004 there was “SHRADH” ceremony of his late father and on 21.07.2004 it was his “BARKHI”. After completing the rituals at his house he along with his younger brother Mohar Singh @ Satwant Singh (P.W.-1) riding on the Hero Honda Motor Cycle were coming to Latehar at about 09:00 o’clock morning and just ahead of them his son Jitendra Kumar Singh (P.W.-2), nephew Santan Kumar Singh and son of his friend namely Raju Ranjan Upadhyay were moving on a T.V.S. Victor Motor Cycle. As they reached the place between village Tubed and Ghorgadha at about 09:30 o’clock morning, the informant saw that about 25-30 M.C.C. extremists wearing uniform and armed with deadly weapons were present, out of them about 8-10 extremists were standing on the road while others were standing beside on the road side. As soon as the extremists saw the informant and his companions approaching towards them, they started firing indiscriminately at them due to which informant’s son Jitendra Kumar Singh (P.W-2), nephew Santan Kumar Singh and Raju Ranjan Upadhyaya fell down from their Motor Cycle.

    (b) From the assembled M.C.C. extremists squad the informant claimed to have identified about eight extremists including the above named accused-appellant at the spot. The informant who was travelling behind upon seeing such indiscriminate firing aimed at them with a view to eliminate them, immediately turned around his Motor Cycle and somehow managed to escape from the scene of occurrence.

    (c) After some time when they learnt that all the extremists had left the place of occurrence and had gone towards the forest then the informant and his brother again rushed back to the site and there, they saw that his nephew Santan Kumar Singh and Raju Ranjan Upadhyaya son of his friend were lying dead and his own son Jitendra Singh (P.W.-2) was nowhere seen. He immediately started calling out his son in response to which they finally traced his son in bush in a seriously injured condition with profused bleeding on account of bullet injury. The informant immediately rushed his injured son to Latehar Hospital for treatment from where he was referred to Ranchi.

    (d) The informant further alleged that he and his family had always protested against the conduc

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