Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 155 (JHR)

Raju @ Ranji Purty v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-31

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
Judgment R.K. Merathia, Aparesh Kumar Singh. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.12.2003 and 09.12.2003 respectively, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial Case No. 251 of 1995, convicting the appellants under sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-each and in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment of three months. They have also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for offences under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in short is that Savitri Champia ( P.W-2)-informant, gave her fardbeyan on 15.11.1994 at about 6.30 P.M. to the effect that she lived with her sister-Suru Champia (deceased) and brother-Kiran Champia (deceased). In the evening of 13.11.1994, her brother-Kiran Champia went out of the house for natural call. Seven persons including the appellants armed with deadly weapons surrounded and dragged Kiran Champia towards pond. The informant with her sister Suru Champia followed up to pond. Kiran Champia was taken in the house of Rengo @ Lode Champia (appellant no. 2). Kiran Champia was crying for help. The informant and her sister due to fear returned back to the house. The informant asked her sister to escape saying that accused persons may kill them also but Suru Champia was not agreeable. The informant escaped and reached in the house of her friend Savitri and remained there for the night. In the morning, she went to Tata and reached at about 12 noon to her sister's house and told about the incident. Thereafter, she along with her sister-Sima and -2her daughter Rani came back to the house of the informant and found that Suru was not there and the door and window were broken and the house was ransacked. Then all three stayed in the house of one Maraki Champia in the night and in the morning went to Chaibasa and informed the police about the occurrence. She further said that her mother used to live with her elder brother at Tata. The informant learnt that her mother had gone to the house of the informant. The informant alleged that the accused persons abducted her brother-Kiran Champia, Sister-Suru and mother Namsee for killing them. 3. She further said that her mother used to live with her elder brother at Tata. The informant learnt that her mother had gone to the house of the informant. The informant alleged that the accused persons abducted her brother-Kiran Champia, Sister-Suru and mother Namsee for killing them. 3. FIR was lodged against nine named accused persons under section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, the dead body of Kiran Champia, Suru Champia and Namsee Champia were found on 16.11.1994 at about 4.30 p.m. in hillock. The dead bodies were seized by the investigating officer ( I.O.). Inquest report was prepared in presence of the witnesses. Postmortem was done. Chargesheet was submitted against the appellants and also against Suru Banra, Soma Tanty and Sanatan Hembrom. The investigation against other accused persons continued. On the basis of chargesheet, cognizance was taken under sections 364, 302, 201 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed under sections 302, 396, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of hearing, learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed charges under sections 364 of the Indian Penal Code. The witnesses were re-examined, during which three accused persons namely Sanatan Hembram, Soma Tanty and Sura Banra absconded. Their case was separated vide order dated 25.06.2003. 4. Mr. R.C. Khatri, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. P.W-2 is the only witness projected as an eye witness who said that she saw that her brother Kiran Champia was taken away by the appellants and others. As she did not find her sister Suru and mother Namsee she suspected that they have also been killed by the accused persons. But there is no eye witness of the actual killing of the three deceased. He further submitted that P.W-2 is not reliable. He also submitted that appellants are in jail for about 17 years by now. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the State, supported the impugned judgment. 6. The prosecution has examined five witnesses. P.W-1 is the doctor, -3who conducted postmortem on three dead bodies of Kiran Champia, Suru and Namsee. He found ante mortem injuries. He examined the dead bodies on 17.11.1994. According to him, the death occurred within 96 hours of the examination. On the other hand, counsel for the State, supported the impugned judgment. 6. The prosecution has examined five witnesses. P.W-1 is the doctor, -3who conducted postmortem on three dead bodies of Kiran Champia, Suru and Namsee. He found ante mortem injuries. He examined the dead bodies on 17.11.1994. According to him, the death occurred within 96 hours of the examination. From the evidence of the doctor, it is clear that the death of the three deceased persons was homicidal and brutal but the conviction is based mainly on the evidence of P.W-2. In her cross-examination, she clearly said that other persons were also living near to her house. She further said that she came out of the house on hearing the cry of her brother. Her brother shouted loudly but no neighbour came out of their house as they supported the accused persons. She further said that she did not know the name of her friend, in whose house, she stayed in the night. She was not knowing her from before. She also did not tell about the occurrence to any neighbour. There was no enmity with the neighbours. The I.O. has not been examined in this case though the case diary has been exhibited. On being asked, Mr. D.K. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the State, admitted that no neighbour or any other independent witness has been examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation. Thus, it will not be safe to uphold the conviction only on the basis of such evidence of P.W-2. The prosecution has not been able to prove the manner of occurrence as projected by the prosecution. 7. After carefully going through the records, in our opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.12.2003 and 09.12.2003 respectively, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial Case No. 251 of 1995 against the appellants, is set aside. The appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.