Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2206 (JHR)

Asian Guria v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2018-10-04

H.C.MISHRA, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 24.01.1996 and Order of sentence dated 27.01.1996, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in S.T. No.700 of 1993, whereby, the sole appellant Asian Guria has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.5,000/-for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Luthar Munda, the brother-in-law of the accused, recorded on 22.6.1993 at village Baghia, P.S. Rania, in the then District of Ranchi, wherein he has stated that he was informed that his mother-in-law and sister-in-law were murdered on 20.6.1993. He went to his in-law’s place and saw the dead body of his mother-in-law at the door and the dead body of his sister-in-law on the varandah of the house, and both the dead bodies were lying in the pool of blood. The informant did not make any suspicion against anyone. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Rania P.S. Case No.22 of 1993 corresponding to G.R. No.396 of 1993, was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against unknown, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case against the sole accused, who is the son of one deceased and the brother of the other. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused’s pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. 5. In course of trial, six witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of both the deceased. The I.O. has not been examined in the case and as such, the formal FIR, the fardbeyan, the inquest reports of the dead bodies and the confessional statement of the accused have been proved with the help of a formal witness P.W.-6 Banwari Lal Jayswal, which were marked Exts. 3 to 6 respectively. The I.O. has not been examined in the case and as such, the formal FIR, the fardbeyan, the inquest reports of the dead bodies and the confessional statement of the accused have been proved with the help of a formal witness P.W.-6 Banwari Lal Jayswal, which were marked Exts. 3 to 6 respectively. The statement of the wife of the accused as recorded by the Police Officer, has also been proved as Ext.-7, with the help of the same formal witness, who was again examined as a Court Witness. 6. P.W.-5 Luthar Munda is the informant in the case and he is also the brother-in-law of the accused. This witness has only stated that he was informed about the murder of his mother-in-law and sister-in-law, whereupon, he went there and saw both the dead bodies in the pool of blood on the varandah of the house. He has also proved his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked Ext. 2 / 7. He has not stated anything against the accused. 7. P.W.-2 James Guria and P.W.-3 Salan Guria are the co-villagers of the accused and they have stated that the accused came to their place and informed them that the dead bodies of his mother and sister were lying in the house. They went there and saw the dead bodies and thereafter the accused went to his in-laws’ place. They have also not stated anything about involvement of the accused in the crime. P.W.-2 James Guria is also the witness to the inquest reports of both the dead bodies and he has proved his signatures and signatures of other witness on the inquest reports, which were marked Exts. 2 to 2/3. He has also stated that the statement of Flora Guria, the wife of the accused, was also recorded by the police, on which also, he had put his signature, and he has proved the signatures on the said statement also, which were marked Exts. 2/4 to 2/6. P.W.-3 Salan Guria has stated that he was not informed as to who had committed the murder. None of these witnesses have stated anything against the accused. 8. P.W.-4 Falora Guria is the wife of the accused. She has stated that she was at her parents’ place and her husband had gone to bring her back, but she did not go to her in-laws’ place. None of these witnesses have stated anything against the accused. 8. P.W.-4 Falora Guria is the wife of the accused. She has stated that she was at her parents’ place and her husband had gone to bring her back, but she did not go to her in-laws’ place. She returned back to her in-laws’ place only in the month of July 1993, after the murder of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. She has stated that her statement was recorded by police, upon which, she had put her signature in presence of witnesses, and she has identified her signature, which was earlier marked as Ext. 2/5. 9. P.W.-1 is Dr. B. Ekka, who had conducted the post-mortem examinations on the dead bodies of both the deceased on 23.6.1993, and had found the incised injuries on both the dead bodies, which were sufficient to cause the death of both the deceased. The dead bodies were at the stage of decomposition. He has proved the post-mortem reports to be in his pen and signature, which were marked Exts. 1 and 1/1. 10. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he had denied the circumstances against him. 11. From the evidence on record, we find that there is absolutely no evidence against the appellant in the case. The only circumstance is that the appellant is the son of one deceased and brother of the other. According to the witnesses, the dead bodies were lying on the varandah of the house, which was an open place, and as such, even if it is presumed that the accused was living with them, it cannot be concluded that no one else could commit the murder of both the deceased. In fact, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused was present there along with the deceased at the time of occurrence. Though the prosecution has proved the confessional statement of the accused, through a formal witness, but it was recorded in the presence of the police and the same cannot be taken in evidence against the accused. There is no material on record to show that the confessional statement of the accused had led to any recovery. Even the recorded statement of the wife of the accused, which was proved by a formal witness, cannot be taken in evidence against the accused. There is no material on record to show that the confessional statement of the accused had led to any recovery. Even the recorded statement of the wife of the accused, which was proved by a formal witness, cannot be taken in evidence against the accused. The wife of the accused is P.W.-4 Flora Guria, and though she has admitted to have given the statement before the police, but she has not disclosed the contents thereof and has not stated that what statement was given by her to the police. She has not stated anything against the accused in her evidence. The I.O. of the case has not been examined. We find from the evidence on record that there is absolutely no material on record to support the conviction and sentence of the sole accused and as such, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 24.01.1996 and Order of sentence dated 27.01.1996, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in S.T. No.700 of 1993, convicting and sentencing the appellant Asian Guria for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set-aside. Consequently, the appellant is found not guilty and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is on bail and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 13. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the Court concerned, along with a copy of this Judgment.