Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 208 (JHR)

Juwel Minz v. State Of Jharkhand

2007-03-28

DILIP KUMAR SINHA

body2007
JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. Both the appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three months each respectively, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 521 of 1996. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that informant Shashi Bhushan Rai has gone to village Rajdanda in search of PW 1 Rajkumari Harijan, who was required for certain jobs as labour in the morning of 6.3.1996, when appellants assaulted him with fist, slaps and lathi. The incident was seen by villagers. Thereafter, the brother of informant Vidhya Bhushan Rai (PW 6) reached at the place of occurrence and brought his brother for treatment at Mahuadar Referral Hospital. 3. The police was informed which arrived at the hospital and recorded the Jardbeyan of the deceased at 10.00 a.m., on the basis of which Mahudar Police Station Case No. 5 of 1996 under Sections 341, 342, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. The informant was referred to RIMS for better treatment where he breathed his last. The police after investigation of the case submitted charge-sheet against the appellants mentioned in the fardbeyan as well as under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial of the appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions where they are charged on 22.8.1998 to face trial. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. However, the learned trial Court after examining the witnesses found and held both of them guilty under Sections 304 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to serve as aforesaid. 4. The present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. It is also asserted that during trial, all witnesses have turned hostile except PW 3 who admittedly has not seen the occurrence. It is also asserted that even the medical evidence does not support any injury likely to cause death. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in absence of the investigating officer and any medical evidence to prove the charge beyond doubts, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 6. I have gone through the materials on records. It is also asserted that even the medical evidence does not support any injury likely to cause death. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in absence of the investigating officer and any medical evidence to prove the charge beyond doubts, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 6. I have gone through the materials on records. The Jardbeyan recorded by Mahudar Police in the afternoon of 6.3.1996 does not mention that any grievous hurt was caused. The medical report by PW 4 Dr. Nagendra Prasad mentions a clear-cut wound on the right side head and two lacerated wounds. At that time 9.20 p.m., the deceased was in conscious state and except injury No. 1, others were simple in nature. PW 7 Dr. Saroj Kumar, conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body on 7.3.1996 has mentioned certain abrasions on various parts of the body and one stitched wound on right parietal portion which on dissection showed contusions of brain caused by hard and blunt substance. This head injury has caused the death. 7. PW 1 Raj Kumar Harijan, PW 2 Sushila Minz, PW 3 Felicita Minz and PW 5 Jagbir Ganshi have been declared hostile by the prosecution as they did not support the prosecution, story and claimed ignorance about the incident. The very basis of the occurrence is therefore disputed by PW 1 for whom the deceased has gone in the village. PW 6 brother of the deceased has asserted that one day before Holi, the deceased has gone to village Rajdanda. He was later on informed next day that the deceased was lying in inured condition in the house of PW 1. He is a hearsay witness of the incident. This witness has asserted that he has gone to bring his brother along with one Ganesh Prasad but that Ganesh Prasad has not been examined. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I find and hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubts that on 6.3.1996, the deceased was assaulted by the appellants in the manner alleged resulting in his death. It is difficult to confirm the conviction on the basis of the hearsay witness when all probable witnesses have turned hostile. It is difficult to confirm the conviction on the basis of the hearsay witness when all probable witnesses have turned hostile. The learned trial Court has also considered these facts but held on the basis of fardbeyan itself that the appellants were guilty for the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, the present appeal has got merit and deserves to be allowed. 9. In the result, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellants is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them and further discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.