Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 832 (JHR)

Karu Sah v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-09-06

P.P.BHATT, PRAKASH TATIA

body2011
JUDGMENT By Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt.--The present Criminal Revision application is filed by the petitioner (original informant) being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2000 whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 herein for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with regard to Deoghar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 46 of 2000. 2. According to the Fardbeyan, on 15.1.2000 the informant (petitioner) had gone to Tapoban Mela and when he returned back to his house at 4.00 p.m., his mother informed him with regard to altercation with the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 and thereafter his brother Sanjay Sah (since deceased) had gone for evening walk and the informant was going towards Tower Chouk where he heard that a boy was murdered near the house of the accused Siddheshwar Keshri (since dead) and on reaching there the informant identified the dead body of his brother Sanjay Sah. It was alleged that there was land dispute between the families of the informant and his uncle since last 7-8 years. As per Fardbeyan, there was some altercation held between the informant and the opposite parties for which the informant gave his fardbeyan to the police an the spat at 18.45 hours an 15.1.2000 detailing the facts and suspecting that the accused Siddheshwar Keshri, Lakshmi Sah, the uncle .of the Informant, and the cousins of the informant namely Bikram Sah and Shivcharan Sah had conspired and had got his brother Sanjay Sah murdered due to the aforementioned enmity between them. On the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant, Deoghar P.S. Case Na. 16 of 2000 was registered and investigation of the case was carried out. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in this case. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons an 28.6.2000 and upon the accused persons' pleading nat guilty and claiming ta be tried, the accused persans were put an trial. During the trial accused Siddheshwar Keshri died and the trial was dropped against him vide order dated 17.4.2000. 3. In course of trial the prosecution examined 8 witnesses including the informant, I.O. and the Doctor. During the trial accused Siddheshwar Keshri died and the trial was dropped against him vide order dated 17.4.2000. 3. In course of trial the prosecution examined 8 witnesses including the informant, I.O. and the Doctor. The prosecution had brought certain documents on record which were marked exhibits. The statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they have denied the accusation as also the circumstances appearing against them in evidences brought on record by the prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has assailed the judgment delivered by the Sessions Judge acquitting the accused persons. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in appreciating the evidence on record and mare particularly the oral evidence given by the PW-4 who was eye witness to the occurrence. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective and passed the judgment and order of acquittal. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that almost all the witnesses have supported the prosecution story as also corroborated by the circumstantial evidence as also medical evidence. It was lastly submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge acquitting the accused persons may be reversed and the same may be converted into order of conviction and sentence. 5. As against that, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 (original accused) supported the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has properly evaluated the evidence on record while reaching to the conclusion of passing of judgment and order of acquittal. 6. We have carefully examined the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in S.C. No. 121 of 2000. On perusal of the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge it appears that he has dealt with each and every aspect of the evidences adduced before him and has appreciated the facts and circumstances in the light of oral as well as documentary evidences adduced before him. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error while coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish or prove the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and thereby recorded acquittal. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error while coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish or prove the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and thereby recorded acquittal. On perusal of the judgment as also LCR it transpires that the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses including the informant, I.O. and Doctor though from the Fardbeyan it is apparent that there was no eye witness to the occurrence but the prosecution has examined P.W. 4 Rajendra Pd. Sah as an eye witness to the occurrence. This witness is the brother of the deceased who has described the occurrence of the incident. In his cross-examination this witness has admitted the old enmity with the accused persons and stated that he was informed by his mother that on the date of occurrence there was altercation between them in which the accused persons had given threat. This witness has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that when from the place of occurrence he ran towards his house and he had met his brother Bijay Prasad Sah who is the informant in the case and he had stated the entire occurrence to his brother and thereafter, his brother came to the place of occurrence and this witness went to the police station. The attention of this witness was also drawn towards his statement given before the police in which he had stated that he had given statement before the police in the same manner in which he had stated the occurrence as an eye witness before the court. 7. P.W. 7, Rajeev Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case who has contradicted the statement of the P.W. 4 and in his cross-examination I.O. has stated that this witness had not given any statement as an eye witness to the occurrence, rather he had stated that he had come to the place of occurrence alongwith other members of his family, saw the dead body and had stated that someone had committed the murder of his brother. This evidence of the I.O. completely falsifies the statement of P.W. 4 Rajendra Prasad Sah who had come as the sole eye witness to the occurrence of the incident. This evidence of the I.O. completely falsifies the statement of P.W. 4 Rajendra Prasad Sah who had come as the sole eye witness to the occurrence of the incident. Thus it appears that though P.W. 4 has been projected as eye witness by the prosecution but his evidence does not inspire confidence in view of contradictory version given by the I.O. who is P.W. 7 in the case meaning thereby there is no eye witness in the actual occurrence of the incident. P.W. 5 Bijay Prasad Sah is the informant who supported the Fardbeyan but according to P.W. 5, he was informed by P.W. 4 regarding occurrence of the incident and he stated that when he went back to his house he met his brother Rajendra Sah who informed him that Lakshmi Sah, Bikram Sah, Shivcharan Sah and Siddheshwar Keshri had committed the murder of the deceased and thereafter he came to the police station and gave this statement again to the police but the police did not record his statement and thereafter he wrote to the Human Rights Commission about the same. Thus, it appears that initially statement given by the P.W. 5 before the police did not indicate any specific name of the accused persons but subsequent to the meeting with P.W. 4, P.W. 5 went to the police station and tried to implicate the accused persons against whom there was enmity since long. 8. PW-6 is Dr. N.C. Gandhi who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and described the following fatal injuries:- (i) Lacerated cut wound on right side of head posteriorly 3" x 1/2" x scalp deep. (ii) Depressed wound with bruise over right side of forehead. (iii) Right eyelid and eyeball lacerated with haematoma. According to doctor, cause of death was due to abovenoted injuries. From the oral testimony of the doctor and on perusal of the post mortem report it appears that the death was caused on account of haemorrhage and shock due to abovenoted injuries described by the Doctor but there is no eye witness to the actual occurrence and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and prosecution is unable to establish or prove the chain of circumstances which can prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused persons are responsible for the cause of death. As discussed hereinabove, prosecution tried to project the PW-4 as eye witness but from oral evidence given by the I.O. and looking at the fardbeyan, the oral evidence given by PW-5 does not inspire confidence. In fact, there are major material contradiction in the evidence of PWs-4, 5 & 7. 9. The learned Sessions Judge has made threadbare analysis the oral testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses in its judgment and we do not find any short comings or error in appreciation of evidence on record. The learned Sessions after carefully consideration of material evidence has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused persons as per the cardinal principle of jurisprudence. In such situation, benefit of doubt is required to be given to the accused persons. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion we do not find any merit in this revision application, hence the same is ordered to be dismissed.