Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 15 (JHR)

Ravan Roy v. State of Bihar

2017-01-04

H.C.MISHRA, S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The appellant Newani Roy is reported to be dead and his death certificate has also been brought on record. Accordingly, the appeal abates as against appellant No. 2-Newani Roy. 3. The appellant Ravan Roy is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 27.11.1992 and Order of sentence dated 30.11.1992 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka, in S.C. No. 154 of 1989, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 147/458/325/326 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been found guilty for the same. Upon hearing on the point of sentence the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 458 of the I.P.C., R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C., R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C. and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of fardbayan of one Gulo Rai, who happened to be brother of the deceased. According to the prosecution case, in the night of occurrence the deceased brother of the informant was sleeping in the courtyard of the house whereas informant was sleeping inside the house and the wife of the deceased was also sleeping on the Verandah. It is alleged that 7 to 8 culprits entered the courtyard of the informant and started assaulting the brother of the informant. Upon the alarm raised, the informant came out and objected, whereupon the culprits started assaulting him. It is alleged that the culprits tied the brother of the informant on the cot on which he was sleeping, poured k.oil on him and put him to fire, due to which the deceased died while being taken to Hospital. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown culprits, on the basis of which Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 24/1984, corresponding to G.R. No. 234/1984 was instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant Ravan Roy, who is also own brother-in-law of the informant, as also against the deceased accused Newani Roy. 5. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown culprits, on the basis of which Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 24/1984, corresponding to G.R. No. 234/1984 was instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant Ravan Roy, who is also own brother-in-law of the informant, as also against the deceased accused Newani Roy. 5. After commitment of the case to the court of Session, charge was framed against both the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147/458/325/326/380 and 302 of the I.P.C., and upon accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. 6. In course of trial the prosecution has examined six witnesses out of whom P.W.1-Gulo Rai is the informant and brother of the deceased. P.W.2-Vishnu Rai is an employee of the informant. P.W.3-Jirni Devi is the wife of the deceased. P.W.4-Dr. Shyam Sunder Daruka had conducted postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased and had found that the deceased had died due to approximately 90% burn injury. This witness has proved the postmortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.-1. P.W. 5-Dr. Samendra Nath Dey had examined the injuries of the informant and he had proved the injury report which was marked Ext.-2. P.W. 6-Sushil Chandra Biswas is a formal witness who has proved fardbayan, F.I.R. and inquest report. The I.O. has not been examined in the case. 7. P.W. 1-Gulo Rai had supported the prosecution case as detailed above and he has also stated that amongst the culprits he had identified the appellant Ravan Roy and his brother Newani Roy. He has also stated that Ravan Roy is his brother-in-law and they are in inimical terms. In his cross-examination he has stated that Ravan Roy is married to his own sister. Similarly, P.W.2-Vishnu Rai has also supported the prosecution case as an eye-witness, stating that he was present at the place of occurrence. He has also stated that amongst the culprits he identified the appellant Ravan Roy, who had poured kerosene oil on the deceased and put him on fire. Similarly, P.W.2-Vishnu Rai has also supported the prosecution case as an eye-witness, stating that he was present at the place of occurrence. He has also stated that amongst the culprits he identified the appellant Ravan Roy, who had poured kerosene oil on the deceased and put him on fire. P.W.3-Jirni Devi, who is the wife of the deceased, has also supported the prosecution case and stated that when the culprits started assaulting her husband, she fled away from the place of occurrence and concealed herself, and she returned back after the occurrence, when she saw her brother-in-law (informant) injured, and her husband burnt. She has also stated that amongst the culprits she identified Ravan Roy and Newani Roy. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to admitted enmity between the parties, which is stated in the evidence of informant P.W.1-Golu Rai. Learned Counsel submitted that it is a clear case of false implication of the appellant due to previous enmity, inasmuch as, the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant against unknown culprits, but in the evidence the appellant has been named by the informant, his employee and the wife of the deceased only due to previous enmity. Learned Counsel also submitted that I.O. has not been examined in this case which has caused serious prejudice to the defence for the reason that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R., and his name has come for the first time in the evidence. Learned Counsel accordingly, submitted that this is a fit case in which the appellant ought to have been acquitted of the charges by the Trial Court below. 9. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant Ravan Roy to have committed murder of the deceased by putting him to fire. It is submitted that though the appellant is not named in the F.I.R., but in the evidence of P.W.1 it has come that since the informant was under pains after the occurrence, he could not name the accused persons. Learned Counsel pointed out from the evidence that even P.W.2-Vishnu Roy has stated that it was the appellant Ravan Roy who had put the deceased to fire. Learned Counsel pointed out from the evidence that even P.W.2-Vishnu Roy has stated that it was the appellant Ravan Roy who had put the deceased to fire. Learned Counsel for the State accordingly, submitted that prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below. 10. Having heard learned Counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the appellant Ravan Roy is the own brother-in-law of the informant and the enmity between both the parties has been admitted in the evidence of P.W.1-Golu Rai. In the F.I.R. the informant has not named the appellant, rather F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown culprits. Had the appellant committed the offence, it was but natural that he would have been named in the FIR at the first instance, in view of the direct allegation that he had put the deceased to fire. In view of the admitted enmity between the parties, it cannot be ruled out that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to the previous admitted enmity between the parties, by way of after thoughts. Indeed, the I.O. of the case has not been examined and this has also caused serious prejudice to the defence. 11. In the facts of this case, even though there are three eye-witnesses to the occurrence, who have named the appellant, we are of the considered view that taking into consideration the close relationship between the parties, coupled with admitted enmity, there was no chance of the informant skipping the name of the appellant at the time of lodging of the F.I.R., particularly in view of the direct allegation against the appellant of putting the deceased to fire. In view of the admitted enmity between the parties the possibility of false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out. We are of the considered view that even though the eye-witnesses have named the appellant, it is a fit case in which the appellant is entitled at least to the benefit of doubt, and the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. Accordingly, the appellant Ravan Roy is given benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of the charges. 12. Accordingly, the appellant Ravan Roy is given benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of the charges. Consequently, the Judgment of conviction dated 27.11.1992 and Order of sentence dated 30.11.1992, passed by the learned rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 154 of 1989, are hereby, set aside. The appellant is on bail and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 13. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the L.C.R. be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith along with copy of this Judgment.