Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 485 (JHR)

PARNA ORAON v. STATE OFJHARKHAND

2006-04-27

N.DHINAKAR, R.R.PRASAD

body2006
Judgment : ( 1 ) THE appellants, Parna lohar and Ganesh Lohar, were arrayed as a2 and Al before the Trial Judge, along with two others, Jingu Oraon and Afe Kujur, who were arrayed as A3 and A4 and who were acquitted by the Trial Judge. The Trial judge, while acquitting Ganesh Lohar (Al)of the charge under Section 3021. P. C. , found the first appellant, Parna Lohar (A2), guilty under Section 302 I. P. C. , for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Ganesh lohar, who was arrayed as Al, was found guilty only under Section 2011. P. C. The first appellant (A2) was also found guilty under that section. Both of them, for the said offence, were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. ( 2 ) P. W. 1 Abdul Sattar is the father of the deceased Jainul. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of Murma Mela, the first appellant Parna Lohar took loan of Rs. 200/- from the deceased but did not repay the amount. ( 3 ) AT about 6. 30 p. m. on 31-12-1986, while P. W. 1 Abdul Sattar was in his house along with his son, Jainul, one Ram Dayal mahto went to the house of P. W. 1 and told jainul that he is wanted by the first appellant. The deceased left the house with Ram dayal Mahto. At that time, P. W. 9 Shakhawat and P. W. 4 Abdul Gaffar were in the house of P. W. 1. The deceased who went with Ram dayal Mahto did not return home that night. P. W. 1, therefore, searched for his son, but could not find him. On the next day, while he was searching, he met P. W. 3 Kabil Mian who told that the deceased was seen in the company of the accused Parna Lohar and ganesh Lohar at Khalihan. P. W. 1 went to the Khalihan of the first appellant but could not find his son. He found first and second appellants, sitting in front of fire, enjoying themselves. P. W. 1 came to the conclusion that his son, Jainul, must have been murdered and his body would have been concealed by the appellants and others who (A3 and A4) are their friends. He found first and second appellants, sitting in front of fire, enjoying themselves. P. W. 1 came to the conclusion that his son, Jainul, must have been murdered and his body would have been concealed by the appellants and others who (A3 and A4) are their friends. The body was ultimately traced on the basis of the information furnished by the Choukidar, who was examined as P. W. 6. Thereafter fardbeyan was given by P. W. 1 at the police station. The said fardbeyan is Ext. 6. Investigation in the crime was taken by the Investigating Officer, who conducted inquest and prepared inquest report Ext. 7. ( 4 ) THE body was subjected to post mortem by P. W. 11, Dr. D. K. Dheeraj and he found the following injuries :- " (A) Abrasions W x 1/4", 1/4" x 1/4" over lower part of the front of the neck. (B) Incised wounds :- (1) 3 1/2 x 3/4" x cavity deep on the left forehead starting from 1 1/2 above the outer end of the left eyebrow upto W right to midline. (2) 4 1/2" x 3" x bone deep with skin flapping and chipping of left temporal bone seen over the left temporoparietal area. Skin flup turned posterolaterally. (3) 3 1/2" x 3/4" x bone (upto) deep on the left cheek starting from lower border of outer end of the left eye cutting to maxilla and the lower orbital margin completely. (4) 2" x 3/4" x 1" below the left side of the lower jaw. (5) 1 1/4" x 1/2" x bone deep (cutting the right clavicle) near medial end of clavicle. (6) 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep over left second rip near sternal junction. (7) 1/4" x 1/4" x skin deep below medial end of right clavicle. (8) 1 1/2 x 3/4" x bone deep cutting the c5 vertebra in the lower outer part of the right side of the neck". The Doctor issued Ext. 5, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that death is on account of the injuries suffered by the de-ceased. ( 5 ) AFTER the completion of investigation, final report was filed against the appellants, who denied all the incriminating circumstances, when they were questioned under section 313 Cr. The Doctor issued Ext. 5, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that death is on account of the injuries suffered by the de-ceased. ( 5 ) AFTER the completion of investigation, final report was filed against the appellants, who denied all the incriminating circumstances, when they were questioned under section 313 Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is absolutely no evidence connecting the appellants with the crime and that the prosecution did not establish any of the links in the chain of circumstances, though it wanted to prove the case against the appellants by circumstantial evidence. The counsel further submits that even, according to P. W. 1, the deceased left in the company of Ram Dayal Mahto and the said Ram Dayal Mahto was not even produced and examined in the Court. He, submits that the appellants are entitled to an acquittal. On the above contention, we have heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the deceased died and died on account of the injuries suffered by him. We, therefore, hold that Jainul died on account of homicidal violence. ( 8 ) THE case of the prosecution is that since the first appellant borrowed Rs. 200/- from the deceased, which he did not return in spite of demands made by the deceased, the deceased was murdered by the appellants. According to P. W. 1, at about 6. 30 p. m. , when he was in his house along with his son and with P. Ws. 4 and 9, one Ram dayal Mahto came to his house and told the deceased that he is wanted by the first appellant. According to P. W. 1, the deceased left the house in the company of Ram Dayal mahto and that he was not seen thereafter. P. W. 1 has further stated that on the next day, he was informed by P. W. 3 that the deceased was seen in the company of the appellants and when he questioned them, they feigned ignorance. He also stated that he saw the appellant enjoying themselves sitting in front of fire. P. W. 1 has further stated that on the next day, he was informed by P. W. 3 that the deceased was seen in the company of the appellants and when he questioned them, they feigned ignorance. He also stated that he saw the appellant enjoying themselves sitting in front of fire. We are unable to understand as to how, from the above evidence of P. W. 1, the appellants could be found guilty, since it is the very case of the prosecution that the deceased left in the company of Ram dayal Mahto, who was not produced in the court and examined as a witness. Therefore, there is no material to show as to what happened to the deceased after he left in the company of Ram Dayal Mahto. Merely because P. W. 1 saw the appellants, sitting in front of fire, enjoying themselves, it will not make them liable for an offence of murder. In the absence of any other evidence and on the basis of the evidence of P. W. 1, we are unable to uphold the conviction of the appellants. ( 9 ) THIS appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are set aside. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. They are discharged from their bail bonds. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .