Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 57 (JHR)

Chhatarpal Ganjhu v. State of Jharkhand

2009-01-12

D.K.SINHA

body2009
JUDGMENT: D.K. Sinha, J.- The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of their conviction recorded under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Latehar whereby each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,0001- with default stipulation for each count. 2. The offence is related to highway dacoity of a number of vehicles including the police vehicle by road hold up putting boulders on the road. The miscreants, aged about 20"25 years, were variously armed with sticks, tangi and pistols committed dacoity for about 40-45 minutes in several vehicles, smashed the window pans of the vehicles thereby causing injuries to the passengers. On the statement of the driver-home guard no. 9175 a case was instituted vide Chandwa P .S. Case No. 20 of 2004 on 21.2.2004 for the offence under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code against 20-25 unknown miscreants. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellants pending investigation against others. The appellants were put on trial and were accordingly convicted and sentenced giving rise to the present appeal. 3. Six witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution as amongst eight witnesses named in the charge-sheet. Besides, the prosecution proved the signature of the informant, Jai Jangal Gupta on the Fardbeyan Ext.-1, Formal F.I.R. Ext.-2, Entire Fardbeyan Ext.-3 and Chart of Test Identification Parade Ext.-5. However, the trial court erred by recording the confessional statement of the accused Laldeo Ganjhu before the police, proved as Ext.-4. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that P.W.1-Dharampal Mehta and P.W. 2-Ranjan Sharma though supported the factum of alleged occurrence but none of them could claim to identify any of the appellants or other miscreants at the time of alleged road dacoity and that neither had been earlier called for to participate in the Test Identification Parade of the suspects. It was P.W. 3-Jai Jangal Gupta who erroneously identified the appellants without disclosing the manner of their identification during alleged occurrence the learned counsel urged and therefore, no reliance could have been made by the trial court on uncorroborated testimony of the single witness who happened to be home guard driver for inflicting conviction to the appellants. It was P.W. 3-Jai Jangal Gupta who erroneously identified the appellants without disclosing the manner of their identification during alleged occurrence the learned counsel urged and therefore, no reliance could have been made by the trial court on uncorroborated testimony of the single witness who happened to be home guard driver for inflicting conviction to the appellants. The testimony of this witness may well be presumed that it would not have been free from bias, and the possibility that the appellants were shown to him after their arrestation prior to so-called test identification parade cannot be ruled out, under such situation conviction of the appellants would tantamount to miscarriage of justice. 5. The learned A.P.P. by controverting the contention of the counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution case was well proved before the trial court and no inconsistency was found in the judgment so as to call for interference. Admittedly, the informant is the driver of the police vehicle but at the same time being the injured witness he was the victim of the situation as the window glass pans of the police vehicle which was driven by him was smashed by the dacoits and during such occurrence he had reasonable opportunity to identify the miscreants from the close range. 6. The learned Trial Judge observed that the evidence of the informant P.W. 3Jai Jangal Gupta was found to be unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and that amongst the eye witness, it was the evidence of Jai Jangal Gupta (P.W. 3) which assumes more importance because he was the injured victim and he would have had the opportunity to notice the offenders/appellants from close range and he had reasonable opportunity with imprint in his mind of the images of the criminals who committed dacoity and occurrence. There was no reason for the prosecution witnesses for the false implication of the appellants. 7. Regard been had to the facts and circumstances of the case, though it is consistently argued that the conviction of the appellants was made on the sole testimony of the informant P.W. 3-Jai Jangal Gupta but I find after examining the entire stock of situation and the materials on record that the trial court did not err by holding the appellants guilty for the charge under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Test Identification Parade was organized at the instance of the Investigating Officer, P.W. 4 Surendra Ravi Das who categorically testified that he had partly investigated the case and on 28.3.2005 he organized the Test Identification Parade in which Jai Jangal Gupta had identified the suspects Chhatarpal Ganjhu, Lakhan Ganjhu and Ramesh Ganjhu i.e. appellants herein. P.W. 6 Mukulesh Chandra Narayan, the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Latehar testified that as many as 11 suspects were brought on Test Identification Parade inside the Latehar Sub-Jail and Jai Jangal Gupta had identified the three culprits amongst them, who were the appellants, with specific overt act attributed to each of them that they held up the vehicles by pelting stones and bricks who conjointly committed dacoity. The TIP chart was proved and marked Ext. 5. The informant P.W. 3-Jai Jangal Gupta substantiated this fact by testifying and substantiating his claim of identification before the trial court. Generally the court looks for corroboration in cases of serious offences like dacoity etc. but in the instant case I find that the testimony of single eye witness who claimed to identify the appellants with the manner of participation was unblemished and reasonable. 8. I, therefore, find that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Latehar in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2005 is well discussed which do not call for interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.