Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(JHK) 134
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ
ARJUN KUMAR VERMA ARJUN VERMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR – Respondent
Cr.A(DB) 162 / 1999
Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Adv. for the Appellant; Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. for the Respondents
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies led to reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's actions.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304 Part I - Conviction and sentence for causing death of a child - Appellant convicted by trial court, but evidence suggests child accidentally fell while attempting to intervene in a scuffle, leading to a lack of direct culpability - Non-examination of key witnesses undermines prosecution's case. (Paras 2, 9, 10)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; in this case, the lack of eyewitness corroboration raises reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's actions. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of killing a child during a scuffle. Witnesses claimed the child was thrown, but cross-examination revealed inconsistencies, suggesting the child fell accidentally.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was not supported by credible evidence, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was not guilty.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the evidence sufficiently proved the appellant's culpability in the child's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence did not support the conviction as it raised reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's actions during the incident.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the conviction is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29-05-1999 (sentence passed on 31- 05-1999) passed by Sri Raj Narain Prasad Singh, learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in S.T. No. 259/1991, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Chathu Mahato recorded on 25-09-1990, in which it has been stated that in the night of 24/25-09-1990 at around 2:30AM, the informant was in the veranda along with his wife, Chandrawati Devi, administering medicines to their one-year-old child, Pinku and their daughter was also present when Arjun Kumar Verma (appellant) entered into the house and by using abusive language, wanted the informant to come out. When the informant gave out his identity, the accused wanted to know about the landlord of the informant and by once again abusing the informant, dared him to come out. It has been alleged that when the informant came out, there was a scuffle between the informant and the accused and when the wife of the informant started shouting, the accused left the informant, went near his wife and by snatching his daughter, slammed her on the floor. When the accused tried to flee away, he was apprehended by the informant and Dev Prasad Singh.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Joraokhar PS Case No. 301/90 was instituted under Section 302 IPC against Arjun Kumar Verma. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. Case No. 259/1991. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 304 IPC, which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case:
P.W.1 Deo Prasad Singh has stated that it was 2:30AM on 25-09-1990 and he was sleeping in his room when on hearing a commotion, he came out and saw Chhathu Mahato being assaulted by Arjun. In the meantime, the wife of Chhathu Mahato arrived and started shouting for help. He has stated that Arjun Kumar Verma snatched the child from the lap of the wife of Chhathu Mahato and threw the child on the ground which resulted in her death. The landlord Jamadar Singh caught and tied up Arjun Kumar Verma and informed the Police.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that when the wife of Chhathu was trying to pacify the quarrel, he had seen the child falling down from the lap of the wife of Chahthu.
P.W.2 Lakhan Kumar Singh was sleeping in his house and hearing some commotion when he came out, he saw a scuffle going on between Arjun Kumar Verma and Chhathu Mahato. When the wife of Chhathu came in the vicinity, Arjun Kumar Verma snatched the child from her and threw it on the ground.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was awake on the night of the incident. The scuffle between Arjun and Chhathu was stopped by his father and the wife of Chhathu.
P.W.3 Dr. Vinod Kumar was posted as an Assistant Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, P.M.C.H., Dhanbad and on 25-09-1990, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Pinku, a child aged one year, and had found the following:
(i) Abrasion ½” x ½” on the left side of forehead.
(ii) Bleeding from left ear. No other external injury was visible.
(iii) On dissection, following injuries were found-
(a) Left side chambers of the heart were empty. Right side chambers were full with blood.
(b) Lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys and other internal organs were normal looking. Urinary bladder was empty. Stomach contained about fifty c.c. mucoid fluid and curd like material.
(iv) On removal of scalp, skull was normal,
