2024 Supreme(Online)(HC) 2137

- 1 - Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 346 of 2016

THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 346 of 2016

-------

(Against the judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2016 and order of

sentence dated 29.01.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge-I, Khunti, in Sessions Trial Case No. 398 of 2012)

------

Joseph Soy son of late Nathaniel Soy, Resident of village-

Soyko, P.O-Murhu, P.S.-Murhu, District-Khunti, Jharkhand

…

… Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

…

… Respondent

----

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

------

For the Appellant

: Mr. Jorong Jedan Sanga, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Special .P.P.

--------

C.A.V. on 21/02/2024

Pronounced on 05/03/2024

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:

Prayer:

1.

This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of

conviction dated 23.01.2016 and order of sentence dated

29.01.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,

Khunti, in Sessions Trial Case No. 398 of 2012, whereby and

whereunder the learned trial court has convicted the

appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo R.I for life

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of

Rs.20,000/- and in the event of default of payment of fine

convict

was

further

directed

to

undergo

rigorous

imprisonment for one year.

- 2 - Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 346 of 2016

Prosecution Case:

2.

This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality

and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of

institution of prosecution case:

The First Information Report has been lodged on the

basis of fardbayan of Sukru Bhengra, which was recorded by

Sub-Inspector of Police, Mehra Police Station, Officer-in-

charge of Akri P.S. alleging therein that deceased Pasna

Bhengra, the husband of informant Sukru Bhengra, stepped

out from his house at around 8:00 AM on 16.12.2011 with

Joseph Soy, S/o Late Nathaniel Soy, Village-Soyko, P.S.-

Murhu, District-Khunti who at present lives at the house of

his maternal uncle Junad Oreya in Japut. He did not return

till 4:00 PM then the informant began to wait for the return of

her husband deceased Pasna Bhengra. In meanwhile, the

informant came out from her house on hearing alarm of

shepherd and co-villagers. She came to know that Joseph Soy

killed Pasna Bhengra, the husband of informant, with an axe

and fled away in forest. The informant went on road near

graveyard at west of village and saw the dead body of her

husband Pasna Bhengra in a pool of blood. Thereafter, the

informant went and narrated this fact to other villagers. The

villagers tried to search Joseph Soy here and there but he

could not be traced out. At around 11:30 PM, Joseph Soy

- 3 - Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 346 of 2016

came at house of his maternal uncle Junad Oreya where he

was caught with the cooperation of villagers and inquired

then Joseph Soy said that we both (deceased Pasna Bhengra

and Joseph Soy) were coming from Soradih to our house at

Japut and further stated that in the meanwhile, we have

exchange of hot discussion and abusive language, and I

(Joseph Soy) killed deceased Pasna Bhengra with an axe on

this issue and fled into forest after throwing the axe into the

bush. After being caught by villagers and as disclosed by

Joseph Soy, the axe used for murder was recovered from

nearby bush and seized by the police.

3.

On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Akri P.S.

Case No. 44 of 2011 was registered for the offence under

Section 323, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against

the accused and after completion of investigation the

Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code against accused. Accordingly,

the cognizance for the offence under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code was taken against accused and the case

stands committed to the Court of Sessions wherefrom it has

been transferred to the file of learned District & Sessions

Judge-I, Khunti.

4.

The charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code against named accused person to which he

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

- 4 - Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 346 of 2016

5.

During trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution

has examined altogether nine [09] witnesses, they are PW 1

Ramaya Konda, PW 2 Nathaniel Topno, PW 3 Soleman Tuti,

PW 4-Samuel Oriya, PW 5-Dr. Sunil Khalko, PW 6-

Parmeshwar Dayal Mehara, PW 7 Boas Guria, PW 8 Daniel

Mundu and PW 9 Sukru Bhengra, (Informant).

6.

The trial Court, after recording the evidence of

witnesses,

examination-in-chief

and

cross-examination,

recorded the statement of the accused and found the charges

levelled against the appellant proved beyond all reasonable

doubts. Accordingly, the appellant had been found guilty and

convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of

the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life

imprisonment for the said offence, which is the subject

matter of instant appeal.

7.

The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of

sentence is under consideration before this Court as to

whether the trial Court, while convicting the accused person,

has committed any illegality or not.

Argument on behalf of appellant:

8.

Mr. Jorong Jedan Sanga, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence on the following grounds:

- 5 - Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 346 of 2016

I.

That the prosecution has miserably failed to establish

the charge said to be proved beyond all reasonable

doubt.

II.

That the prosecution has also failed to appreciate

that it is not a case where any ingredient of Section

302 I.P.C. is attracted.

III.

That in the case at hand, there is no reliable eye

witness to the occurrence and on mere suspicion the

appellant has been arrested and convicted in the

case.

IV.

Further, the investigation in the case at hand has

been done in a haphazedly manner and there are

many

discrepancies

and

inconsistency

in

the

testimony of the witnesses in particular the testimony

of the informant, P.W. No. 9 and other witnesses.

Some witnesses have stated that this occurrence was

committed at 4:00 PM and some witnesses stated

that it was committed at 2:00 PM. Similarly, there are

too many contradictions in evidence of P.W. No. 7-

Boas Guriya, P.W. No. 2-Nathaniel Topno and

P.W.No. 4-Samuel Guriya and others. But the the

learned trial Court did not take into consideration

these facts into consdiration while passing the

impugned judgment of conviction.

- 6 - Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 346 of 2016

V.

Further, the commission of crime cannot be said to

be

conclusively

proved

in

absence

of

any

corroboration by not sending the ‗blood-stained Tangi‘

(a sharp-edged iron weapon), said to be used in

commission of crime for assaulting the deceased, to

the Forensic Science Laboratory.

VI.

The learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the

aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned