Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1706
2025:JHHC:25423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.
Indrajit Majhi, Son Of Late Bola Majhi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 153 of 2005
Decided on : 06-08-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellants : Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
For the Appellants :Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
The failure of the prosecution to provide reliable, identifiable evidence against the appellants led to the overturning of their conviction for assault leading to death.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 325 and 302; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 6 - Criminal conviction - Appellants convicted under Section 325/34 and sentenced to four years of imprisonment and fine for assault leading to death - Prosecution relied on witness testimony lacking identification of assailants - Conviction set aside due to insufficient evidence and failure to establish direct involvement of appellants. (Paras 2, 10, 26-28)
(B) Evidence - Res gestae principle - Hearsay evidence can be admissible when statements are part of the same transaction, but must be contemporaneous to ensure no fabrication - Failure to substantiate claims of identifcation led to reversal of conviction. (Paras 19-22, 25)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of beating the deceased, leading to his death. The only eyewitness (P.W.-4) did not identify the assailants, leading to questions of reliability regarding testimonies of other witnesses who did not directly witness the event.
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented did not establish the involvement of the appellants in the alleged crime; thus, the conviction was overturned.
Issues: The main issues addressed include the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the application of the res gestae rule regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the lack of identification by the primary eyewitness precluded the conviction, emphasizing that testimony must be corroborated without hearsay being the basis for conviction.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. testimonies and defense claims. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. arguments regarding evidence and witness reliability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. principles of section 6 of the indian evidence act. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. court's assessment of evidence and judgment. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. conclusion and order of appeal. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
ORDER :
ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2005 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in S.T. No. 28 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 325/34 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default in payment of fine the appellants were to undergo further R.I. for one month.
3. The prosecution case is based on an F.I.R. which came into existence on the written report of Revati Majhian wife of late Bilom Majhi, resident of Village – Kathgoda, P.S. – Ichagarh, who stated therein that yesterday i.e. on 13.04.1997 at about 08:00 P.M. in the night his husband was standing with her in the courtyard, then the villagers namely, Kishan Majhi, Ratan Majhi, Kamal Majhi, Indu Majhi and Kali Majhi, all of sudden came and they caught hold of her husband given fist and lathi blows to him. Informant tried to save her husband but she could not succeed, then she started calling other persons then above said miscreants fled away. It is also stated by the informant that the house of the miscreants is in front of the house of informant and on account of mar-pit her husband Bilom Majhi received injury on his mouth, cheek, waist and leg and was also having body-ache and he could not able to speak. Informant stated that on trivial issue such incident took place, but she has no knowledge of the same.
4. An F.I.R. being Ichagarh P.S. case No. 16 of 1997 dated 14.04.1997 for the offence u/s 143,341,323 of IPC has been instituted.
5. From record it transpires that during course of treatment injured Bilom Majhi succumbed to injury at T.M.H., Jamshedpur and thereafter Section 302 of IPC was added in the aforesaid F.I.R.
6. On the completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and thereafter cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. Case No. 28 of 1998. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302/34 of IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. Prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case. They are:-
P.W. -1 Fulchand Majhi and P.W.-2 Som Majhi who are neighbourers, P.W.-3 Dhasu Majhi is brother of deceased, P.W. -4 Revati Majhian is the wife of deceased and the informant of the present case, and P.W.-5 Sripati Majhi is the nephew of the deceased.
8. Statement of appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was taken in which the accused persons simply denied the incident and claimed to be innocent.
9. There is no evidence led on behalf of the defense.
10. After analyzing evidence available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused persons under Section 325 /34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for four years and Rs. 3,000/- as fine.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that only P.W.-4 (Revati Majhian) was said to be the eye-witness of the present case who happens to be the wife of the deceased but even she has not supported the case of prosecution as she has categorically stated that the persons who did mar-pit with the deceased, she could not identify them.
It is further pointed out that apart from P.W.-4 (Revati Majhian) other witnesses are hearsay in na
