Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1018 (JHR)

Md. Mannowar Alam v. State of Jharkhand

2018-05-08

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the informant appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The informant appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 30th of July, 2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Godda, in S.T. No. 179 of 2014, whereby the accused respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were facing the trial for the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted after the trial, finding them not guilty. 3. As this acquittal appeal has been filed after the delay of 18 days, I.A. No. 6796 of 2016 has been filed for condonation of the delay, and another I.A. No. 2260 of 2018 has also been filed, seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. 4. The prosecution case, as discussed in the impugned judgment, is that the informant Md. Mannowar Alam gave an information at the Basntrai Police Station on 8.4.2014 at 6.15 A.M., about the recovery of the dead body of his 7 years’ old cousin, which was lying in a wheat field. It is alleged that there was enmity between the family of the informant and the accused persons, viz., Md. Razzaq, Md. Kurban, Md. Naeem and Md. Moin, due to which, they had earlier given threats to the father of the deceased of committing murder in his family. It is also alleged that on 5.4.2014 all the aforementioned four accused persons after, capturing the deceased, had assaulted her to death and thrown the dead body in a wheat field. On the basis of the information given by the informant, the police case was instituted and investigation was taken up and ultimately it appears that charge-sheet was submitted against the accused respondents. 5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, the accused respondents were put to trial for the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the impugned Judgment shows that 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 6. The impugned Judgment further shows that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, rather only three witnesses have deposed that they had lastly seen the accused persons in company of the deceased, who are, P.W.-1 Md. Sabbir, P.W.-3 Md. 6. The impugned Judgment further shows that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, rather only three witnesses have deposed that they had lastly seen the accused persons in company of the deceased, who are, P.W.-1 Md. Sabbir, P.W.-3 Md. Kasim and P.W.-4 Bibi Sanjida Khatun, stating that on 5.4.2014, the deceased, namely, Noori Khatoon was playing with the other children, namely, Nisha, Nargis and Nuresha, and the accused persons were also following the children, and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found on 8.4.2014. It is apparent from the impugned Judgment that the father of the deceased-girl, who was allegedly given the threats by the accused persons has not been examined by the prosecution. It is in the backdrop of these facts that the Trial Court below has found that the chain of the circumstances was not complete, so as to point out only towards the guilt of the accused respondents, and not otherwise. The Trial Court below, accordingly, acquitted the accused respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the informant appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court below is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as there is evidence to show that the accused persons had earlier given threats to the father of the deceased to commit the murder in his family, and the witnesses have stated that they had seen the accused persons following the children on 5.4.2014, while they were playing, and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was recovered. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the offence is clearly made out against the accused respondents and they ought to have been found guilty, and convicted and sentenced for the offences committed. 8. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. 9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the record, we find that the only evidence against the accused respondents is that P.W.-1 Md. Sabbir, P.W.-3 Md. Kasim and P.W.-4 Bibi Sanjida Khatun had seen the deceased child playing with other children on 5.4.2014 and the accused persons were also there and, thereafter, they were seen following the children, thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found on 8.4.2014. There is a long gap between the alleged evidence of last seen and the recovery of dead body. There is a long gap between the alleged evidence of last seen and the recovery of dead body. None of the children, with whom, the deceased was seen playing, have been examined in the case, nor the father of the deceased, who was allegedly given threats by the accused respondents has been examined in the case. 10. In the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court below has judiciously decided the case and has acquitted the accused respondents, as the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused respondents beyond all reasonable doubts. As such, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal, so as to call for any interference therein by this Court. 11. Since, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal, no question arises of granting leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2260 of 2018, filed for seeking leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal, stands dismissed. 12. As no useful purpose shall be served by condoning the delay in filing the appeal, I.A. No. 6796 of 2016, filed for condonation of the delay, also stands dismissed. 13. Consequently, the acquittal appeal also stands dismissed, being bereft of any merit.