Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 824 (JHR)

State of Jharkhand v. Sunil Paswan

2012-06-18

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
Order I.A. No. 235/2012 This I.A. has been filed for condoning the delay of 15 days in filing this appeal. On being satisfied with the grounds, delay of 15 days in filing this appeal is condoned. I.A. is disposed of. Acquittal Appeal No. 4 of 2012 By Court: This appeal arises from the judgment of acquittal dated 23.09.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 290 of 2009 acquitting the accused-respondent Sunil Paswan from the charges under sections 302, 392 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State, assailed the judgment of acquittal and submitted that at least PW-8 was the witness on the point of last seen and therefore, the order of acquittal could not have been passed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the certified copies of the evidences of the witnesses produced by him. 4. It appears that PW-8 Sangita Devi, wife of the deceased, said that the appellant and two others took her husband-Upendra Kumar on a Sumo Victa which was driven by the appellant, but her husband did not return and she came to know later that he was murdered. PW-9 Anil Kumar and PW-10 Dharmendra Kumar said during investigation before the police that they had conversation with the deceased-Upendra Kumar in the night of 27.09.2008 when he was taking dinner with the appellant and two others in a hotel. But these two witnesses namely PWs – 9 and 10 did not support the prosecution version that Upendra Kumar had informed them that he along with the appellant and two others was taking dinner in the said hotel. PW-10 only said that the deceased had informed and told him that 2-3 persons are with him and he was going to Bengal, but he did not name the accused-respondent as one of those persons. In the circumstances, the only evidence against the accused-respondent is that his wife (PW-8) last saw him in the company of the deceased and two others, but such evidence has not been corroborated by any other material. 5. In the circumstances, the only evidence against the accused-respondent is that his wife (PW-8) last saw him in the company of the deceased and two others, but such evidence has not been corroborated by any other material. 5. It appears that after considering the respective cases of the parties and materials available on record, the learned trial court had no option than to record the finding of acquittal on the basis of the materials brought on record by the prosecution. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the State and after going through the evidences produced by him, in our opinion, there is no reason for taking a different view than what the learned trial court has taken in recording a finding of acquittal against the accused-respondent and there is no chance of conviction on the basis of available materials. 7. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.