Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 176 (JHR)

Sahadeo Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-28

AMITAV K.GUPTA, PRASHANT KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT BY COURT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.10.2003 and 14.10.2003 respectively passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, whereby and where under, he convicted the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Budhni Devi and sentenced him to under go imprisonment for life and further directed him to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he further directed that appellant should undergo R.I. for a period of three months. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, as per Fardbeyan of informant (P.W.3) is that in the night of 05.03.1999, he was sleeping in his room, whereas his step mother Budhni Devi (deceased) was sleeping in another room. He further stated that at that time his father, Sahadeo Manjhi had gone to village Jehratoli for some urgent work. It is further stated that his father returned at about 12 O'clock in the night and knocked the door. It is stated that when deceased delayed in opening the door, the appellant became furious and started abusing her. Whereupon deceased forbade him from abusing, then appellant assaulted her with lathi due to that she received injuries on her back, both hands and both legs and fell down on the ground and started writhing. Due to assault deceased received fracture injury on her thigh. It is stated that after some time she died. It is then stated that after hearing hulla, persons residing in the vicinity arrived and witnessed the occurrence. 3. On the basis of aforesaid statement, Mango P.S. case no.229 of 1999 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code instituted and police took up investigation. It appears that during investigation, police prepared inquest report of the dead body. Thereafter, sent the same for postmortem examination. It further appears that Investigating Officer has seized some articles from the place of occurrence and prepared seizure list. After completing investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It then appears that cognizance of the offence was taken by learned C.J.M. Thereafter, case committed to the court of Sessions, as the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by a court of Sessions. 4. After completing investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It then appears that cognizance of the offence was taken by learned C.J.M. Thereafter, case committed to the court of Sessions, as the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by a court of Sessions. 4. After receipt of the case, the same was transferred in the file of Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, who vide his order dated 01.06.2001 framed charges against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and explained the same to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. It appears that prosecution had examined altogether six witnesses in support of its case. Prosecution had also brought on the record Ext.1 (signature of witnesses on the inquest report), Ext.2 (postmortem report), Ext.3 (Fardbeyan), Ext.4 series (endorsement on the fardbeyan) Ext.5 (signature on the seizure list), Ext.6 (page 16 to 24 of the case diary) and Ext.7 (inquest report). The court below after considering the evidence available on the record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated herein above. Against that present appeal filed. 6. While assailing the judgment of the court below, Sri G.S.Prasad, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that in the instant case, there is absolutely no legal evidence in support of the case of prosecution. He further submits that P.W.1, is hearsay witness, whereas P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are hostile witnesses. P.W.5 is doctor and P.W.6 is Investigating Officer. He further submits that learned court below had committed serious illegality in convicting the appellant on the sole testimony of P.W.3, who is a hostile witness. Thus, he submits that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Addl.P.P. submits that though P.W.3 has been declared hostile, but he supported the case of prosecution, therefore, learned court below rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence of P.W.3 8. Having heard the submissions, we have gone through the records of the case. P.W.5 is the doctor, who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Budhni Devi and found altogether 9 ante-mortem injuries on her body, caused by hard and blunt substance. He further opined that the deceased died due to aforesaid injuries. Aforesaid version of P.W.5 finds full support from the inquest report. P.W.5 is the doctor, who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Budhni Devi and found altogether 9 ante-mortem injuries on her body, caused by hard and blunt substance. He further opined that the deceased died due to aforesaid injuries. Aforesaid version of P.W.5 finds full support from the inquest report. Under the aforesaid circumstance, we conclude that the deceased died a homicidal death. Now, the question arose for determination as to whether appellant has committed present crime or not? 9. It reveals from the record of the court below that there are four witnesses of fact i.e. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4. P.W.1 is a hear say witness and he categorically stated that he had not seen the occurrence from his own eyes. P.W.2 and P.W.4 are hostile witnesses and they have not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.3, who is informant and son of appellant had also been declared hostile, because he has not fully supported the case of prosecution. From the perusal of evidence of P.W.3, we find that he at paragraph no.1 of his examination-in-chief, had stated that he saw the occurrence, but at paragraph no.2, he categorically stated that he had not seen the assault. Thus, it appears that he was making different statements at different stages. It appears that learned court below convicted the appellant on the sole testimony of P.W.3. 10. It is well settled that evidence of solitary eye witness can become sole basis for conviction, if his evidence is wholly reliable, acceptable and trust worthy. As noticed above, in the instant case, statement of P.W.3 is not wholly reliable, because some time he states that he saw the occurrence, whereas at some place he states that he had not seen the occurrence. Thus, in our view, his sole testimony can not become the basis for convicting the appellant in absence of any corroboration from independent source. In the instant case, there is absolutely no other materials brought on the record, which corroborate the testimony of P.W.3. Thus, we find that learned court below had committed serious illegality in convicting the appellant on the basis of sole testimony of P.W.3. Hence, impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 11. In the fact and circumstance, as discussed above, this appeal is allowed. Thus, we find that learned court below had committed serious illegality in convicting the appellant on the basis of sole testimony of P.W.3. Hence, impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 11. In the fact and circumstance, as discussed above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.10.2003 and order of sentence dated 14.10.2003 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.1, JSR, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No.347 of 2000 is hereby set aside. The appellant namely, Sahadeo Manjhi is acquitted from the charge levelled against him. It appears that the appellant is in custody, thus, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.