Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1117 (JHR)

Ramdas Kisku v. State of Bihar

2011-12-16

D.N.UPADHYAY, K.MERATHLA

body2011
JUDGMENT By Court.- This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.1.1991 and 25.1.1991 respectively, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur, Sabihganj in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 1986/12 of 1990, arising out of Taljhari P.S. case No. 2 of 1985 corresponding to G.R. No.27 of 1985 convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 21.1.1985 the informant PW 2 lodged a fardbeyan to the effect that when he was going along with PW 1, PW 3 and the deceased, the appellants surrounded them and started beating them by lathi causing several injuries. Thereafter, the villagers tied them with rope and produced before the Pradhan of the village where after sometime (deceased) Surja Paharia died. 3. The prosecution examined altogether four witnesses. PW 1 is the son of the informant, PW 2 is informant, PW 3 is wife of the informant and PW 4 is a formal witness. 4. It is surprising that neither any injury report of the informant nor the postmortem report of the deceased have been exhibited in this case. Actually they are not even available in the lower Court's record. The I.O. of the case has also not been examined. The appellants have been convicted by the trial Court on the ground that death is admitted and therefore, it was not necessary to bring on record the postmortem report or the injury report. Though PW 1 and PW 2 have supported the prosecution case but PW 2 also said that the villagers had doubt that the deceased and the informant were thieves and therefore, they were assaulted and produced before the Pradhan of the village. 5. No charge has been framed in this case under Section 307, I.P.C. though the informant is also said to have sustained injuries. The prosecution has not taken any pains to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 6. In the circumstances, there is no option then to acquit the appellants giving them benefit of doubt. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The prosecution has not taken any pains to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 6. In the circumstances, there is no option then to acquit the appellants giving them benefit of doubt. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.1.1991 and 25.1.1991 respectively, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur, Sabihganj in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 1986/12 of 1990, arising out of Taljhari P.S. Case No.2 of 1985 corresponding to G.R. No.27 of 1985 is set aside. The appellants who are on bail are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Appeal allowed.