Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 346 (JHR)

Raj Krit Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-04-10

N.DHINAKAR, RAKESH RANJAN PRASAD

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. Cr. Appeal No. 155 of 1995 is by Ram Lakhan Singh and Nawal Kishore Singh, who were arrayed as A-3 and A-1 in Sessions Trial No. 426 of 1995 and Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 1996 is by Raj Krit Singh, who was arrayed as A-2 in the said Sessions Trial. 2. The above two appeals are being disposed of by the following common judgment and in this judgment, the appellants in both the appeals will be referred as A-1 to A-3, in the same order, as they were arrayed before the trial judge, for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts are as follows : Ram Pratap Singh, the deceased in this case, is the brother of PW-5, Jagmohan Singh. They were residents of village Chatampur and Ram Lakhan Singh, the 3rd accused and the other two accused were also residing in the same village. About two years prior to the date of incident, the deceased and Ram Lakhan Singh, A-3, quarreled with each other over throwing of dung in the pit. Therefore, they were in inimical terms and this is said to be the motive of the said occurrence. At about 9.00 a.m. on 22.5.1989, the deceased, Ram Pratap Singh, left the house after informing his brother, PW-5, Jagmohan Singh, that he is going to Bero Bazar. PW-5 followed him. When the deceased and PW-5 reached Dahara Kudarnala, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 appeared before them. It was 10.00 a.m. by then. The 2nd accused, Raj Krit Singh was having a sword in his hand and the 1st accused and the 3rd accused were armed with lathis. On seeing the deceased, Ram Pratap Singh, the 2nd accused, Ram Krit Singh cut him and A-1, Nawal Kishore Singh and A-3, Ram Lakhan Singh, abetted him to cut and kill the deceased, Ram Pratap Singh. The deceased was cut and PW-5 raised alarm to save his brother. The villagers gathered and the accused 1 to 3 ran away from the place. PW-5 informed the Chowkidar as well as PW-6, Bihari Singh, who is the son of the deceased. After the arrival of Chowkidar, PW-4, Falguni Ahir, information was sent to the police station and then the Fardbayan was given to the police by PW-5 (neither the Police Officer was examined nor the Fardbayan given by PW-5 was marked, during trial). 4. PW-5 informed the Chowkidar as well as PW-6, Bihari Singh, who is the son of the deceased. After the arrival of Chowkidar, PW-4, Falguni Ahir, information was sent to the police station and then the Fardbayan was given to the police by PW-5 (neither the Police Officer was examined nor the Fardbayan given by PW-5 was marked, during trial). 4. After the investigation was taken up, (Investigating Officer was also not examined) inquest was conducted, during which witnesses were examined. PW-3, Pramod Pathak, is one of the witness to the inquest(PW-3 turned hostile). After the inquest, dead body was sent to the hospital for the purpose of post mortem (the prosecution did not examine the doctor, who conducted autopsy and did not mark Page 1204 the post mortem certificate). Later, after the completion of investigation, final report was filed. 5. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them. 6. The learned Advocates, appearing for the respective appellants, in both the appeals, strenuously contend that in absence of any legal evidence, the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants and, therefore, they are entitled for acquittal. 7. We have considered the contention and heard Mrs. C. Prabha, learned A.P.P. 8. It could be seen that the prosecution wanted to prove that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence, but failed to do so by not only not examining the doctor but also by not marking the post mortem certificate. There is absolutely no evidence on record even remotely to indicate that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence. 9. The prosecution examined PWs-1,2,3 and 5 as witness to the occurrence and out of them, PWs-1,2 and 3 turned hostile and only PW-5 supported the prosecution version. According to PW-5, he saw the occurrence when he was following his brother, Ram Pratam Singh, who was on his way to Bero Bazar. He has further stated that on seeing the occurrence, he raised alarm and the villagers gathered. According to him, he informed the son of the deceased and the Village Chowkidar and later laid Fardbayan (We have already noticed that the prosecution did not mark the Fardbayan , said to have been given to the police and that the Police Officer was also not examined). According to him, he informed the son of the deceased and the Village Chowkidar and later laid Fardbayan (We have already noticed that the prosecution did not mark the Fardbayan , said to have been given to the police and that the Police Officer was also not examined). The evidence of PW-5 will not show that the deceased died on account of injury suffered by him. 10. In the absence of any evidence, much less the evidence of the doctor and the post mortem certificate, we cannot act on the evidence of PW-5 alone to hold the appellants guilty for the offence of murder of the deceased, Ram Pratap Singh. 11. It is also worth to notice, at this stage, that all the other witnesses turned hostile, except PW-6, Bihari Singh and PW-7, Phani Singh. But, their evidence is hearsay in nature as they have only stated that they heard about the occurrence from PW-5. Therefore, the evidence of PWs-6 and 7 is of no use to the prosecution. 12. In this background, we have to consider the evidence of PW-5. In the cross-examination, PW-5 stated that he found the dead body on reaching scene of occurrence and the blood was coagulated. If the occurrence had taken place while he was present then he could not have seen dried blood on the dead body. The answer given by PW-5 in cross examination itself shows that he could not have been present at the time of occurrence and must have reached the place much later along with other villagers and on suspicion must have given the alleged complaint. It is also not out of place for us to mention that even, according to the prosecution, after the quarrel between the deceased and the 3rd appellant, which took place two years prior to the date of incident, there was no quarrel between the parties and in the absence of any other evidence, we find it difficult to accept the prosecution case that on account of a quarrel which took place about two years prior to the date of incident, the accused-appellants attacked the deceased and killed him. 13. On the consideration of the materials placed before us, we find that there is no legal evidence to connect the appellants with the above offence. 13. On the consideration of the materials placed before us, we find that there is no legal evidence to connect the appellants with the above offence. Both appeals are Page 1205 allowed and the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants is set aside. It is reported that the appellant, Raj Krit Singh, who is the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 1996 and was arrayed as A-2 in the Sessions Trial No. 426 of 1991, is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, unless he is wanted in any other case(s). The other two accused-appellants, Ram Lakhan Singh and Nawal Kishore Singh(appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 155 of 1995) are on bail; they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds.