Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 16 (JHR)

Indira Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-04

H.C.MISHRA, S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad, in S.T. No. 287 of 2010/S.T. No. 124 of 2011, whereby the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, who were facing the trial for the offence under sections 302, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted of the charge after trial. The informant, who is the mother of the deceased, being aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal has filed the present appeal. 3. The Lower Court Record shows that all the prosecution witnesses, except the informant, had been examined in the case. The order-sheet of the Lower Court and particularly the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the Court below show that all possible efforts were taken by the Trial Court below for production of the informant in the case, including the issuance of warrant of arrest to the informant, letter to S.P., D.C., Dhanbad, letter to D.G.P., Uttar Pradesh along with warrant of arrest at her permanent address and even the Dasti Summons were given to the I.O. for producing the informant, but in spite of all efforts the informant could not be produced in the Court below for her evidence. Accordingly, the prosecution evidence was closed and on the basis of the evidence available on the record, the Court below has acquitted the accused persons. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant very fairly submitted that he has nothing to argue on the merits of the case, rather the submission of the learned counsel is that, the prosecution case was closed in hot haste without awaiting the service reports, and more efforts ought to have been taken for examination of the informant in the Court below. Learned counsel submitted that if the judgment of acquittal is set aside and the matter is remanded back, the informant shall examine herself in the Court below at an early date and the matter may thereafter be decided by the Trial Court. 5. Learned counsel submitted that if the judgment of acquittal is set aside and the matter is remanded back, the informant shall examine herself in the Court below at an early date and the matter may thereafter be decided by the Trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private respondents 2 to 4 have opposed the prayer submitting that after taking all possible efforts, the Court below has closed the prosecution case, only when the informant could not be produced for her evidence in the Court below. 6. We have also gone through the Lower Court Records. The F.I.R. clearly shows that the informant is the mother of the deceased and she is not the eye witness to the assault upon her deceased son. The occurrence had taken place outside her house at about midnight, when her deceased son was assaulted by the unknown culprits by fire arm. Upon hearing the sound of firing she came out and found her son in injured condition and some persons fleeing away, whom she has not named. She has only suspected that the named accused persons, who are the In-laws of the deceased had hands in committing the murder of her son due to previous enmity. 7. In that view of the matter, in our considered view, even if the informant is examined in the case, no useful purpose is going to be served by her examination, as the informant is not the eye witness to the assault upon the deceased and she has only raised suspicion against the accused persons due to previous enmity. As such the prayer of learned counsel for the informant for setting aside the Judgment of acquittal, is absolutely uncalled for. 8. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.