Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 648 (PAT)

Shukeshwar Pasi v. State of Bihar

2014-06-16

ANJANA PRAKASH, DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2014
JUDGMENT : ANJANA PRAKASH, J.:–The Appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life by a judgment dated 04/05.03.1991 passed in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1987/113 of 1987 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. 2. The case according to one Krishna Dusadh, Chowkidar is that on 12.05.1984 at 8 AM he learnt from the co-villagers that a dead body of an unknown person had been thrown nearby with his neck cut. On this information, he went to the place of occurrence and rightly found the dead body of an unknown person with injuries on several parts of his body. Thereafter, case against unknown was instituted by the police on the said information given by him. Subsequently, charge-sheet was submitted against four persons but as against Chanarik Yadav the same was dropped on account of his death. 3. The prosecution to prove its case examined five witnesses i.e. P.W. 1, Jaglal Choudhary, P.W. 2, Dharamdeo Yadav, P.W. 3, Krishna Dusadh, P.W. 4, Dr. Chandrashekhar Prasad who conducted the post-mortem and P.W.5, Md. Iliyas Ansari, the Investigating Officer of the case. 4. Whereas, P.W.2, Dharamdeo Yadav is tendered, P.W. 3, Krishna Dusadh is the informant and also formal in nature since apart from reporting about the unnatural death of the deceased there is no material with regard to complicity of the Appellant. Hence, P.W.1, Jaglal Choudhary is the only material witness in the present case. 5. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, Jaglal Choudhary, we find that he stated that on the previous day of recovery of the dead body one unknown person had come to him for toddy but he could not supply him the same. That person went away from there and then he saw him talking to accused Shaligram Mahto and Chanarik Yadav and his son. Subsequently, all of them left. He himself went to village Lohra and climbed on a palm tree and saw the unknown person going towards the East. At night he again saw that unknown person having toddy in the shop of the present Appellant and firstly he stated that an altercation was going on between them but soon thereafter modified his statement and said that both of them were talking to each other. On the next day, he heard a rumour that the unknown person had been killed. On the next day, he heard a rumour that the unknown person had been killed. 6. The Doctor, P.W.4 who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased found sharp cut injuries on his person having been caused by a heavy sharp cutting weapon. He also found the dead body decomposed and which was not in a condition to be identified. 7. P.W.5, Md. Iliyas Ansari, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence on the date of report and prepared the inquest report of the deceased as also got conducted his post-mortem examination. He has not given any statement which would incriminate the present Appellant in any manner. 8. On going through the evidence of the sole witness upon whom the conviction is based, we find that it in no manner connects the present Appellant to the occurrence. Statement of P.W. 1 that the Appellant and deceased had been talking to each other the previous night of recovery of the dead body, is not even incriminating in nature, far from being sufficient to base conviction of the Appellant on this sole material. 9. Moreover, P.W.1, Jaglal Chaudhary has stated that on the next morning after he had seen the present Appellant talking with the deceased, the dead body had been recovered but from the evidence of the Doctor, we find that the body was in a completely decomposed state which would not be possible if the deceased had been killed soon thereafter. Hence, the theory of the present Appellant having been last seen with the deceased the previous night also does not stand scrutiny of a reasonable mind. 10. In view of such, the Appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the Appellant on 04/05.03.1991 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in S.Tr. No. 45 of 1987/113 of 1987 is, hereby, set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge he had been found guilty of. He is on bail. He shall stand discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 11. The Appeal stands allowed. ?