Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1628 (JHR)

Ram Bhagat Korva v. State of Jharkhand

2017-09-09

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred from jail by the appellant being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31st August, 2007 passed by the P.O. Fast Track Court-III, Gumla in Sessions Trial Case No. 161 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, this appellant has been mainly convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of the deceased, for life imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.2.2005 at 16:30 hrs. (4.30 p.m.) the informant Ram Prasad Yadav gave fardbeyan to police that on 21.2.2005 his brother-in-law Mahadeo Gope (deceased) came to his house as a guest. Then informant with his brother-in-law Mahadeo Gope moved from village Birla to Natwal. His brother-in-law Mahadeo Gope was carrying the cot leg (Khatiya Ka Pawa) and informant was carrying it on his shoulder. About 9 a.m. during the day when they reached near Gayachanda near Kashi Tanr, he saw Ram Bhagat Korva of Sikta Toli, P.S. Dumri, District-Gumla standing there and when they reached near him, suddenly, he dashed him and informant fell down with Cot leg. Thereafter, he snatched one Cot leg and attacked the informant with that, but, informant fled away from there. However, his brother-in-law Mahado Gope was not able to flee away and one blow was given on his head due to which he fell down on the ground and then the appellant beaten him with Cot leg upon his head and other parts of the bodies. During course of fleeing, the informant, informed about the occurrence to Louva Korva, Gakhul Kavar of village-Gayachanda and then he went to his village to bring his family members and villagers. When informant returned to the place of occurrence with villagers they saw that his brother-in-law was lying dead there. Thereafter, villagers informed him that Ram Bhagat Korva was caught by the villagers of Gayachanda. The informant, informed about the occurrence to the villagers of his brother-in-law, who also came there and saw the dead body. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution, which are as under: PW-1 Gokul Kavar He is a Hearsay witness PW-2 Lawa Korva Declared Hostile witness. PW-3 Fagua Korva Declared Hostile witness. PW-4 Vinay Gope He is the son of deceased Mahado Gope and is Hearsay witness. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution, which are as under: PW-1 Gokul Kavar He is a Hearsay witness PW-2 Lawa Korva Declared Hostile witness. PW-3 Fagua Korva Declared Hostile witness. PW-4 Vinay Gope He is the son of deceased Mahado Gope and is Hearsay witness. He has proved his signature in the seizure list of blood stained soil and Lungi i.e. marked as Ext.-1 PW-5 Shivnath Gope He is the elder brother of deceased Mahadeo Gope and is Hearsay witness PW-6 Ram Prasad Yadav He is the informant of this case and is Eye witness of an occurrence. He has proved his signature and signature of Shivnath Gope in Fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.-2 and 2/1 respectively. PW-7 Naghina Prasad He is a Hearsay witness. PW-8 Santosh Kumar Gupta (S.I.) He is an Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the formal FIR in the handwriting and signature of Anand Tirkey i.e. marked as Ext.-3/1 and he has proved the seizure list of blood stained soil and Lungi i.e. marked as Ext.-4 and has also proved the Inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.-5 PW-9 Kishore Gawala He is the Formal witness who has proved his signature in seizure list of blood stained soil and Lungi i.e. marked as Ext.-1/1 PW-10 Dr. M.K. Singh He is a Doctor who has conducted the Postmortem of deceased Mahado Gope and has proved the postmortem report i.e. marked as Ext.-6. The Exhibits are as under: Ext.-1-Seizure list of blood stained soil and Lungi. Ext.-1/1-Signature of Kishore Gawala in seizure list of blood stained soil and Lungi. Ext.-2-Signature of Ram Prasad Yadav in Fardbeyan. Ext.-2/1-Signature of Shivnath Gope in Fardbeyan Ext.-3/1-Formal FIR in the handwriting and signature of Anand Tirkey Ext.-4-Seizure list of blood stained soil and Lungi. Ext.-5-Inquest report. Ext.-6-Postmortem report. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. It is also submitted by counsel for the appellant that the case of the prosecution is based upon only one eye witness, who is PW-6, the informant. Counsel for the appellant submitted that looking to the deposition of PW-6, it appears that this appellant was not known to him and no motive for murder has ever been alleged, either in FIR or in his deposition. Counsel for the appellant submitted that looking to the deposition of PW-6, it appears that this appellant was not known to him and no motive for murder has ever been alleged, either in FIR or in his deposition. It is also submitted by counsel for the appellant that when this appellant was not known to the informant, how he has given the name of the appellant to the villagers that he has committed the murder. Moreover, as per the narration of the incident, given by this PW-6, he had run away from the place of occurrence and once, he ran away from the place of occurrence, how he has seen the whole incident, has also not been explained by the prosecution. The incident has taken place nearby Siktatoli which is a village 1 k.m. away from the place of occurrence. When this informant and the deceased were going from village-Birla to Natwal at Gayachanda Kashitand, on the way this incident has taken place, from where Siktatoli is about 1 k.m. away. Prosecution has failed to examine any other witness who has seen the occurrence except PW-6 and looking to his deposition he has run away from the place of occurrence first and thereafter, as per PW-6, fatal assault caused by this appellant. Thus, when this appellant was unknown to him how he has given the name of this appellant to the villagers of Siktatoli. Moreover, once he has run away, he has never seen the whole occurrence. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned court below. So far as P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are concerned, they are hearsay witnesses. They have never seen the occurrence at all. It is also submitted by counsel for the appellant that prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the occurrence. In fact, this appellant has nothing to do with the deceased nor this appellant has anything to do with the informant and wrongly he has been roped into the offences of murder of the deceased. He has already remained in judicial custody since last 12 years and six months and as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder of the deceased committed by this appellant, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. He has already remained in judicial custody since last 12 years and six months and as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder of the deceased committed by this appellant, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. We have heard counsel for the State-APP, who has submitted that the prosecution has proved the offence of murder of Mahadeo Gope, committed by this appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt with the help of eye witness PW-6, who is also the informant of this occurrence. Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 6, it appears that he has clearly narrated the role played by this appellant in causing murder of deceased and looking to the medical evidence given by PW-10, the deposition of medical evidence is corroborated to the deposition given by PW-6. It is submitted by A.P.P. that PW-6 is a trustworthy and reliable witness and hence, there is no need of any other evidences. The quantity of evidence is not required to be seen, but, the quality of the evidence is to be appreciated. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence, this appeal may not be entertained by this court. REASONS 5. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that the whole incident has taken place on 21.2.2005 at about 9 a.m. The FIR was lodged on 21.2.2005 at Dumri P.S., District Gumla. Investigation was carried out and charge sheet was submitted by the police and case was committed to the court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial Case No. 161 of 2005. It appears that whole case of the prosecution is based upon the sole evidence of PW-6 Ram Prasad Yadav. This PW-6 and deceased Mahadeo Gope were going together from village Birla to village Natwal and when they reached at the place Gayachanda, the occurrence has taken place. We have carefully gone through the deposition given by the PW-6 including his cross-examination. It appears that PW-6 has stated that he is not known to the appellant. Thus, the appellant is totally unknown person so far PW-6 is concerned. We have carefully gone through the deposition given by the PW-6 including his cross-examination. It appears that PW-6 has stated that he is not known to the appellant. Thus, the appellant is totally unknown person so far PW-6 is concerned. When this appellant assaulted PW-6 and deceased, it is stated by PW-6 that he ran away from the place of occurrence and went to Siktatoli, which is at a distance of 1 k.m. Thus, it appears that PW-6 has run away from the place of occurrence and then also he has given the exact name of this unknown person-appellant to the villagers of Siktatoli. Moreover, this PW-6 has run away from the place of occurrence, but, he has exactly narrated what has happened at the place of occurrence. This narration does not inspire any confidence and hence, he is unreliable and untrustworthy witness. 6. The prosecution has also failed to prove the motive of the murder. Looking to the narration of PW-6 regarding the whole occurrence, it appears that PW-6 and deceased both were going from village Birla to Natwal and on the way at Gayachanda Kashitand, as per PW-6, the incident has taken place. During cross-examination, he has stated that appellant was never known to him. Nonetheless, he has given exact name of this appellant to the villagers of Siktatoli. Moreover, this informant PW-6, the so-called eye witness has not assigned any motive to this appellant. Thus, looking to the over all narration of the incident given by PW-6 it appears that no motive is also proved by prosecution and except this witness there is no other witness at all, with the prosecution, leading to the conviction. It appears that PW-6 is not a reliable witness at all and in fact, he is not a eye witness of the occurrence, because, he has run away first and the incident has taken place later on, even as per the deposition given during trial. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned court below. We, therefore, quash and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the P. O. Fast Track Court No.-III, Gumla in S.T. No. 161 of 2005 dated 31st August, 2007 as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 7. We, therefore, quash and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the P. O. Fast Track Court No.-III, Gumla in S.T. No. 161 of 2005 dated 31st August, 2007 as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 7. In the light of the evidences on record, the prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged to have been committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court while deciding Sessions Trial Case No. 161 of 2005, hence, we, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.8.2007, passed by the P.O. Fast Track Court No.-III, Gumla in Sessions Trial Case No. 161 of 2005. 8. The appellant namely Ram Bhagat Korva, who is in custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and disposed of.