Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 590 (JHR)

Raghu Nath Pradhan@Raghu v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-04

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
JUDGMENT By Court.- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.10.2003 and 29.10.2003 respectively, passed by Shri Binod Prasad Singh, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial Case No.33 of 1998, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201, IPC, and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further R.I. for 3 months. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 201, IPC. Both sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows. The fardbeyan of Dukhan Sahoo-informant (P.W.5) was recorded on 18.7.1997 at about 7 a.m. on the bank of Fuljhari river in presence of villagers to the effect that his middle son Hira Lal Sahoo, aged about 28 years, had gone to take bath in the river on last Monday i.e., 14.7.1997 at about 1 p.m. but he did not return. The informant started searching him along with villagers since Tuesday but they could not trace him. On Thursday (17.7.1997), they learnt that the dead body was floating in the river. On this, they went to the liver and found the dead body of Hira Lal Sahoo entrapped on stone floating in the river. There were sharp cut injuries on two sides of neck of dead body. The informant expressed suspicion on the father of the appellant namely Budh Nath Pradhan, due to long standing land dispute. 3. P.Ws.1, 3, 7, 8 and 10 are hearsay witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 6 are inquest witnesses. P.W.9 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem report, P.W.-11 is a formal witness, P.W.-4 Soma Hapatgada has claimed to be an eye-witness. The doctor found following ante-mortem injuries on his person (1) skin all over body was pilled off hair of scalp was plied off. Body was in stage of the decomposition. Early stage of magot were present. Skin of palm and sole was soden and corrugated. 2. Sharp cut injury 6"x3"x2" on the light side of neck extending from the light angle of Mandbol to light mastoid region. 3. Sharp cut injury 5"x3"x2" on the middle of face of two left mastoid region. 4. Body was in stage of the decomposition. Early stage of magot were present. Skin of palm and sole was soden and corrugated. 2. Sharp cut injury 6"x3"x2" on the light side of neck extending from the light angle of Mandbol to light mastoid region. 3. Sharp cut injury 5"x3"x2" on the middle of face of two left mastoid region. 4. Sharp cut injury on left temporal region 4"x2" bone was cut. 5. Sharp cut injury on the left wrist 2 and 1 /2"x1"x1 /2". 3. Mr. P.C. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the conviction is based on the evidence of alleged eye-witness. P.W.4 but it has come in his evidence that he fully knew the deceased and the appellant but did not disclose about the occurrence to anybody till the informant met him after four days i.e., on Friday about the alleged occurrence. He also submitted that it is also doubtful how P.W.4 could describe the size of the dagger and number of blows, if he had seen the occurrence from a distance of about 100 yards. He also submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for about 14 years. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State, supported the impugned order and submitted that the evidence of P.W.4 corroborates the medical evidence and other evidences on record. 5. We find force in the submission of Mr. Roy that the evidence of sole eye-witness P.W.4, cannot be safely relied. The deceased was missing from 14.7.1997. According to P.W.4, he saw the appellant causing injuries on the deceased when he was taking bath in the river on 14.7.1997 but then this P.W.4 returned to his house and did not say anything to any person though he knew the appellant and the deceased. The dead body was recovered on 17.7.1997. The FIR was registered on 18.7.1997. In the FIR, the informant expressed doubt about father of the appellant. After the FIR was lodged, the informant met P.W-4 in the evening and then it is alleged that P.W.4 disclosed that he saw the appellant killing the deceased on 14.7.1997. Such conduct of P.W.4 creates serious doubt about his veracity. The FIR was registered on 18.7.1997. In the FIR, the informant expressed doubt about father of the appellant. After the FIR was lodged, the informant met P.W-4 in the evening and then it is alleged that P.W.4 disclosed that he saw the appellant killing the deceased on 14.7.1997. Such conduct of P.W.4 creates serious doubt about his veracity. Moreover, he said that he had seen the occurrence from a distance of about 100 yards but it is not understood how he gave description of the size of dagger and the number of blows said to have been inflicted by the appellant. In the circumstances, in our opinion, it will not be safe to sustain the conviction on the testimony of P.W.4. 6. In the result, this appeal allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.10.2003 and 29.10.2003 respectively, passed by Shrl Binod Prasad Singh, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial Case No.33 of 1998, is set aside. Appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.