Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 334 (JHR)

Rameshwar Pradhan v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-12

D.N.UPADHYAY, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2006, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 286 of 2004 arising out of Kurdega, P.S. Case No. 34 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the fardbeyan of Sonmait Devi recorded on 14.09.2004 at about 12:30 hours at village Hethawa Chapabari within P.S. Kurdega, district Simdega, is that on 14.09.2004 in the morning at 6 a.m. the appellant was quarreling with his wife and the informant was sitting in the Courtyard with her grand daughter. In the meantime, she heard alarm raised by her daughter-in-law. When she entered into the room, she found her daughter-in-law-Sonamati Devi having cut injury on her neck and blood was oozing out. Due to injury, Sonamati Devi was trembling. She had also seen Rameshwar Pradhan having bloodstained Tangi in his hand. She raised alarm which attracted the villagers and they also witnessed the appellant standing at the place of occurrence having bloodstained Tangi in his hand. On the basis of fardbeyan of Sonmait Devi, Kurdega, P.S. Case No. 34 of 2004, dated 14.09.2004, under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant Rameshwar Pradhan was registered. 3. The police after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet, accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session and it was registered as S.T. No. 04 of 2005. 4. The appellant stood charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge examined altogether 10 witnesses including informant, I.O. and the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination. The learned Additional Sessions judge considering the evidences and documents available on record held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for Life. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that informant is none-else but mother of the appellant and she has turned hostile. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that informant is none-else but mother of the appellant and she has turned hostile. She has not supported her contention made in the F.I.R. Learned A.P.P. has drawn her attention towards her earlier statement but those statements were not referred to the Investigation Officer and therefore omission and contradiction taken by the prosecution have no use. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 are the closed relatives of the deceased and they all are hearsay witnesses and they could learn about the occurrence from the villagers. P.Ws. 2, 6 (informant), 7 and 8 have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of Dr. Shakil Ahmad-P.W.9 and Raman Baitha-P.W.10-Investigating Officer are of formal in nature. The doctor has proved postmortem and described the injury whereas the I.O. had explained the investigation done by him. The learned Sessions Judge has held the appellant guilty only considering the evidence of P.W.1-Sannu Bhoy. It is submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 could only be accepted to the extent that he had seen the dead body of Sonamati Devi lying in the house. There is contradiction in his statements when he says that he had seen the appellant standing at the door of his house having bloodstained Tangi, at the same time this witness in the last line of para-1 of the deposition says that the villagers had apprehended Rameshwar Pradhan and he was in their custody. Either of two statements will be correct or it could be said that he has deposed lie before the Court. It is submitted that he had gone to answer the call of nature to the place which is situated at the distance of half k.m. from the house of the deceased. In such circumstances, it was not possible for him to hear alarm raised by the informant, therefore statement of this witness that he was attracted towards the place of occurrence after hearing alarm raised by informant is not acceptable. Besides the above, he is not an eye witness to the occurrence and on such weak piece of evidence, conviction under Section 302 of the I.P.C. cannot be recorded. The learned Additional Sessions 3. Besides the above, he is not an eye witness to the occurrence and on such weak piece of evidence, conviction under Section 302 of the I.P.C. cannot be recorded. The learned Additional Sessions 3. Judge has committed gross error by holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. relying on the evidence of P.W.1 and therefore the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. The learned A.P.P. has opposed the arguments. 7. We have gone through the evidences and documents available on record and the impugned judgment. There appears substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The testimony of P.W.1 is not as such that conviction under Section 302 of the I.P.C. could be recorded. From the deposition of P.W.1, it could be said that he could learn about the occurrence and had seen the dead body of Sonamati Devi lying in the house and had also seen the appellant in custody of villagers. This much of evidence is not sufficient to record conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 8. No Serologist report has been brought on record to show that the weapon allegedly used for commission of the offence was having presence of human blood. The alleged Tangi was not produced before the court. The informant did not support the prosecution case. Other witnesses examined by the prosecution are either formal in nature or hearsay. 9. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to uphold the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded against the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 10. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2006, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 286 of 2004 arising out of Kurdega, P.S. Case No. 34 of 2004 stands set aside and the appeal stands allowed. The appellant Rameshwar Pradhan, who is in jail custody, is directed to be released forthwith from jail custody, if not wanted in any other cases and for that appropriate direction may be issued, if necessary, by the convicting/successor Court.