Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 363 (JHR)

Laktiiram Paharia v. State of Bihar

2006-04-13

N.DHINAKAR, R.R.PRASAD

body2006
JUDGMENT By Court.-Accused appeals. 2. The appellant. Lakhiram Paharia, was charged for an offence of murder and on being found guilty was sentenced to imprisonment for life. 3. The allegation against him in the charge is that at 11.00 a.m. on 17.11.1988, he stabbed Jama Paharia, the husband of PW-3, Tupli Paharin, on account of an earlier quarrel which took place in the morning between the appellant and the deceased. 4. The case of the prosecution can be briefly stated as follows: On 17.11.1988 there was a quarrel between the appellant, Lakhiram Paharia. and the deceased Jama Paharia as regards cutting of a tree. P.W-3 intervened during the quarrel and the appellant went away from the place. Further. case of the prosecution is that Lakhiram Paharia returned to the house of the deceased, Jama Paharia, and thereafter both of them left together to take wine. As the deceased did not return home, his wife, Tupli Paharin, searched for her husband. The dead body was later seen and she informed Lopra Paharia. Lopra Paharia went to the police station and gave Ext. 3, the Fardbayan, at 11.00 a.m. on 18.11.1988. On the basis of which, an FIR was registered and investigation was taken up by PW-9, Rama Kant Ram, who after taking up investigation, conducted inquest over the dead body of Jama Paharia and prepared the inquest report, Ext. 4. After the inquest, the body was sent to the hospital for autopsy. 5. On receipt of the dead body and the requisition, Dr. R. Goswami. PW-7, conducted autopsy and he found the following injuries: "(i) One incised wound on the right indunal region 41/2" x'11/2" x cutting up to urinary bladder. (ii) One incised wound on the right lower abdomen 11/2" x 1/2" abdomen deep. (iii) One incised wound on the igunal region 21/4" x 1" x abdomen deep. (iv) One punctured wound on the right thigh on the upper part W' x 1,4" x muscle deep. (v) Superficial scratches over the middle of the chest but on opening the chest no fracture of rib was found." He issued Ext. 2, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that the death was on account of shock and haemorrhage, which could have occur on account of injuries 1, 2, 3 and 5. 6. (v) Superficial scratches over the middle of the chest but on opening the chest no fracture of rib was found." He issued Ext. 2, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that the death was on account of shock and haemorrhage, which could have occur on account of injuries 1, 2, 3 and 5. 6. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed and the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances, when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contends that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant without any evidence. The counsel submits that even, according to the prosecution, occurrence was not witnessed by anyone and Lopra Paharia was informed by PW-3 after the dead body was seen by PW-3, who, in her evidence, did not whisper a word as to the attack made by the appellant on the deceased. She submits that Ext. 3. the Fardbayan, alleged to have been given by PW-6, must have been prepared after much deliberation. 8. We have heard Mr. S.N. Rajgarhia, learned A.P.P., on the above contentions. 9. Though, there is no dispute as regards the cause of death of Jama Paharia and that he died on account of homicidal violence, we find absolutely no evidence connecting the accused with the crime. The prosecution having relied upon circum. stantial evidence to establish that the -appellant is responsible for the murder of the deceased ought to have proved all the links in the chain of circumstances. The prosecution failed to establish any of the links, except to state that there was a quarrel in the morning between the appellant and the deceased. Even if it is to be assumed that there was a quarrel in the morning between the appellant and the deceased, it will not go to show that the deceased was murdered by the appellant and further if there had been a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased in the morning, it is also highly improbable for the deceased to have gone alongwith the appellant to take drinks. In any event, the evidence of PW-3, the wife of the deceased. In any event, the evidence of PW-3, the wife of the deceased. that the deceased went alongwith the appellant on the date of the incident and later he did not return home, cannot by itself, be a circumstances to find the appellant guilty for a grave offence of murder, 'especially, when the prosecution did not establish any of the links in the chain of circumstances. 10. At this stage, we have to refer to Ext. 3, the Fardbayan, said to have been given by PW-6 at the police station. A perusal of Ext. 3, the Fardbayan, shows that it contains the details as to the attack made by the appellant on the deceased. According to averment in the Fardbayan, the deceased was said to have been attacked with stone on several parts of the body, leading to his death. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-3 after seeing the dead body informed PW-6, who gave the above Fardbayan. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW-3 witnessed the occurrence and in fact PW-3 when gave evidence in court did not whisper a word about the attack made by the appellant on the deceased. In the above circumstances, we find it strange that PW-6, who gets information from PW-3 about the death of Jama Paharia, gave details in the Fardbayan, Ext. 3. as we are unable to understand as to from whom he received such details. PW-6 also in his evidence did not whisper a word that he saw the occurrence and also he did not give any evidence to the effect that the deceased was attacked by the appellant. The prosecution case that the deceased was attacked with stones by the appellant is also not supported by the medical evidence. A perusal of the evidence of PW-7, Dr. R. Goswami, who conducted autopsy and who issued Ext. 2, the post mortem certificate, also shows that the injuries found on the dead body could not have been caused with stone as they must have been caused with a sharp cutting instrument. We, therefore, reject the prosecution case, as it failed to prove any of the links in the chain of circumstances. 11. The appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is set aside. We, therefore, reject the prosecution case, as it failed to prove any of the links in the chain of circumstances. 11. The appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is set aside. It is reported that the appellant is on bail; he is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.