Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 751 (JHR)

Chaitu Mahli v. State of Jharkhand

2012-05-15

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. By Court-This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 03.10.2002 passed by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.I, Gumla in S.T.No.43 of 2002 convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life and also convicting him under Section 201 I.P.C. sentencing him to undergo imprisonment R.I. for five years. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story in short is that P.W. 7 (Gandur Ram) lodged Fard Bayan on 8.6.2001 at about 7.45 a.m. before the police that his brother Vishnu Ram (since deceased) was living alone in his house. On 07.06.2001 at about 8.00 p.m. Vishnu Ram came to his house and returned back immediately and told him that he has purchased 'Meat' and was going to the house of the appellant for cooking and eating it and then will sleep in his house. The appellant was friend of the deceased. The deceased used to give some loan to the appellant. In the morning the dead body of Vishnu Ram was lying thrown in the plank of the road with cut injury on his neck. He along with others rushed to the place of occurrence where the dead body was lying. On the way he saw that a good quantity of blood was spread in the 'Angan' of the appellant and there was blood stains on the wall and door of his house and on the 'Janghia' of the appellant. The appellant was trying to wash the blood stains. On seeing the villagers, he became nervous. On being asked, the appellant did not say anything then he fled away after locking his house. The informant went and found the dead body of his brother with deep cut injury on his neck. The blood was oozing on the ground. The informant alleged that the appellant has killed his brother and thrown the dead body near the road. 3. Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds and submitted that chain of circumstances in this case is not complete. The blood was oozing on the ground. The informant alleged that the appellant has killed his brother and thrown the dead body near the road. 3. Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds and submitted that chain of circumstances in this case is not complete. In absence of the aforesaid F.S.L. report, it has not been established that the blood found on the cloth of the appellant was human blood or it was blood of the deceased and that there is nothing to show that the appellant was last seen with the deceased and that there was no motive for such crime as the appellant and the deceased were admittedly good friends. It is lastly submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for about 11 years. 4. Counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. 5. After carefully going through the records and hearing the parties at length, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellant. It appears that the blood stained cloth of the appellant was sent to F.S.L. but no report has come therefrom to confirm that it was the blood of the deceased or it was a human blood. Moreover, nobody has said that he saw the deceased last with the appellant. It is the informant, who said that the deceased told him that he was going to the house of appellant with 'Meat' and sleeping with him. The dead body was not recovered on the confession of the appellant. Moreover, only on his confession finding of guilt cannot be recorded. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed giving benefit of doubt to the appellant. 7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. 8. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.