Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1228 (JHR)

Haldhar Prasad Lalla v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-21

ANANDA SEN, H.C.MISHRA

body2017
ORDER : H.C. Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant, who is the father of the deceased, is aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal dated 07.03.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 2009, whereby the accused respondent No. 2, who was facing trial for the offences under Sections 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted of charge after trial. 3. According to the prosecution story as revealed from the impugned Judgment, the informant Ajit Kumar @ Banti gave the fardbeyan that on 04.03.2008 at about 09.45 P.M., he was present in his house when he received a call on his mobile that firing had taken place near Binod Nagar, on which he went there and found a blue coloured Indica Car parked outside of the house of B.B. Das, Advocate and his acquaintance Rupesh Kumar Sinha was lying there in an injured condition. The informant along with his friends took Rupesh Kumar Sinha to Hospital and on the way, the injured told him that three motorcycle borne criminals had fired upon him, out of whom he could identify Kali Charan Mahto. 4. Initially the F.I.R. was instituted for the offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, but after the death of the deceased, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. It may be stated at this place that Kali Charan Mahto had faced trial separately, and he has been convicted. 5. After investigation, supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the accused respondent No. 2 Mahendra Yadav also, and accordingly, after commitment of the case to the Court of Session, respondent No. 2 was also put to trial for the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that he had also entered into conspiracy of the murder of the deceased Rupesh Kumar Sinha. 6. The impugned Judgment shows that in course of trial, the prosecution witnesses have stated that the deceased Rupesh Kumar Sinha, while he was alive, had stated that respondent No. 2 Mahendra Yadav had also threatened him. 6. The impugned Judgment shows that in course of trial, the prosecution witnesses have stated that the deceased Rupesh Kumar Sinha, while he was alive, had stated that respondent No. 2 Mahendra Yadav had also threatened him. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court has found that none of the prosecution witnesses had seen the accused Mahendra Yadav and convict, namely, Kali Charan Mahto together to enter into criminal conspiracy and it also appears from the impugned Judgment that there is no evidence of any previous meeting of minds between these two persons. The Court below has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against respondent No. 2 and has acquitted him of the charge after trial. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was ample circumstantial evidence before the Trial Court to the fact that respondent No. 2 Mahendra Yadav had also conspired with the convict Kali Charan Mahto to commit the murder of the deceased, as the witnesses have stated that the deceased had stated that Mahendra Yadav had also threatened him, and accordingly, the impugned Judgment of acquittal cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. Learned counsel however, was unable to point any evidence on record to show the previous meeting of minds between the convict Kali Charan Mahto and respondent No. 2 Mahendra Yadav, except the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased while he was alive, had stated that he was threatened by Mahendra Yadav also. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention towards the polygraphy test of the convict Kali Charan Mahto, which was proved as Ext.-6 during trial. We find from Ext.-6, that to the specific question put to the convict Kali Charan Mahto during polygraphy test relating to the conspiracy between him and respondent No. 2 Mahendra Yadav, his specific answer was 'No'. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer. 9. We find from Ext.-6, that to the specific question put to the convict Kali Charan Mahto during polygraphy test relating to the conspiracy between him and respondent No. 2 Mahendra Yadav, his specific answer was 'No'. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer. 9. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned Judgment, we find that in the evidence there is nothing to show that there was any conspiracy between the convict Kali Charan Mahto and respondent No. 2 Mahendra Yadav for committing the crime, except the evidence of the witnesses, who have only stated that the deceased, while he was alive, had stated that he was threatened by respondent No. 2 also. One of the prime witnesses, which has been discussed on this point in the impugned Judgment, is PW-1 Amarendra Kumar Sahay, who had also stated that the deceased Rupesh Kumar Sinha had also told him that Mahendra Yadav had got him shot and had threatened him of dire consequences. However, during his cross-examination it could be found that there was previous enmity between Mahendra Yadav and the said witness Amarendra Kumar Sahay, as it was admitted by the said witness that Mahendra Yadav and 50-60 other persons had damaged his market complex, for which he reported the matter at the Dhanbad Police Station, but no action was taken. Even in his evidence we do not find anything to show that there was any previous meeting of minds between the convict Kali Charan Mahto and respondent No. 2 Mahendra Yadav to commit the crime. Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that there is only circumstantial evidence on this point, which too we find, is too week to secure the conviction of respondent No. 2. 10. In view of the aforementioned discussions, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment dated 07.03.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 2009, acquitting the respondent No. 2 Mahendra Yadav of the charges. 11. There is no merit in this acquittal appeal, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 12. I.A. No. 3583 of 2017, seeking leave to file appeal against the Judgment of acquittal, also stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.