Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 368 (JHR)

Daniel Guria v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-05

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mrs. Sweta Singh appearing on behalf of the appellant and Learned counsel for the State Mr. Azeemuddin, Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 27.05.2015 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 230 of 2011 by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa where under the learned Court has held the sole accused/appellant herein guilty of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused/appellant herein has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year by the impugned order of sentence dated 29.05.2015. 3. Informant Pinki Birhor is the wife of the deceased Baga Birhor on whose fardbeyan recorded by S.I. B. Manjhi of Jaraikela Police Station at 8.15 hours on 22.04.2011, the formal F.I.R being Jaraikela P.S. Case No. 02 of 2011 was registered on 22.04.2011 under Section 323/324/307 of the I.P.C to which the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C was later on added on the death of the victim Baga Birhor. Daniel Guria is the sole named accused. Investigation started on the basis of institution of the F.I.R. 4. The prosecution story as narrated through the mouth of the informant is that on 22.04.2011 in the evening the accused Daniel Guria, son of late Marshal Buria of village Bara Sakjori, P.S. Jaraikela, West Singhbhum came to her house and demanded food on which she replied that he had been provided rice by her but he is still asking for food. However, he was offered food thereafter. The informant asserted that she along with her husband had food with accused Daniel Guria and thereafter they went to sleep. The accused Daniel Guria was roaming around with bow and arrow and at about 3 am in the night of 22.04.2011, he again came and started hurling abuses. The husband of the informant tried to persuade him not to do so but he did not accede and continued abusing. Thereafter the accused got angry and with intention to kill, shot an arrow from his bow on her husband, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on the left chest and the arrow got inserted. Her husband fell down on the ground and she started shouting, whereupon people from close vicinity arrived. Thereafter the accused got angry and with intention to kill, shot an arrow from his bow on her husband, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on the left chest and the arrow got inserted. Her husband fell down on the ground and she started shouting, whereupon people from close vicinity arrived. The accused thereafter ran away. She has further asserted the reason behind the occurrence being a complaint made against the accused before his elder brother that the accused used to roam around with bow and arrow in the night in Birhor Tola and was in the habit of abusing. Thereafter the accused Daniel Gurial was beaten by his brother and asked not to go to Birhor Tola. It was for this reason that accused Daniel Guria committed the murder of husband of the Informant by intentionally inflicting injuries on her husband to kill him. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under bearing no. 06/2011 dated 11.07.2011 under Section 323/324/307/302 of the I.P.C. The victim, husband of the informant had in the meantime died on 24.04.2011 during treatment at MGM Hospital, Jamshedpur. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Section 302 of the I.P.C by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa vide order dated 10.12.2012, which were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Trial commenced thereafter. 6. Prosecution had examined 6 witnesses as under: 1.P.W.1 Sukua Birhor 2.P.W.2 Budhram Birhor 3.P.W.3 Panja Birhor 4.P.W.4 Suklal Bhumij 5.P.W.5 Vishwanath Prasad Gahlot 6.P.W.6 Dr. J. Srinivas Rao Documentary evidences were also adduced on behalf of the prosecution up to Ext. 4 as under: 1.Ext.1-Fardbeyan 2.Ext.1/1-Endorsement on fardbeyan 3.Ext.2-Formal F.I.R 4.Ext.3-Carbon copy of inquest report 5.Ext.4-post mortem report Sukua Birhor was examined as P.W.1 who has stated in his deposition that he reached the house of Baga Birhor (deceased), which was adjacent to his house on hearing hulla (shout) in the night that accused Daniel Guria had shot an arrow upon Baga Birhor which had pierced his chest. Before they had reached, the accused had fled away. The accused used to roam around with bow and arrow. He further states that the victim had died in the night of Saturday. Before they had reached, the accused had fled away. The accused used to roam around with bow and arrow. He further states that the victim had died in the night of Saturday. The victim had told him that Daniel Guria had shot him with an arrow. This witness stated that the accused Daniel Guria was trying to take away the wife of Baga Birhor i.e., the informant upon which, he was opposed by the victim Baga Birhor and this is the reason for the assault. Wife of Baga Birhor had fled away due to fear. In his cross examination at para 5 he has stated that he had reached the place of occurrence in the night and that Baga Birhor had told him that it was 3 am in the night. There was no dispute between Baga and Daniel from before. He further stated at para 7 of his cross examination that whatever he is speaking has been told by Baga. Baga, his wife, he and Budhram belong to Birhor community. He further stated that Baga was taken to Tata Hospital where he died. He has further stated that his statement was never taken before and that he was deposing for the first time. Budhram Birhor P.W.2 is the elder brother of Baga Birhor (deceased). He has stated in his examination in chief that accused Daniel wanted to establish illicit relationship with Pinki Birhor, wife of Baga Birhor, which was opposed by his brother. At para 3 of his examination in chief he says that the occurrence was seen by Sukua Birhor apart from him and wife of the deceased had not seen the occurrence. They had tried to catch hold of the accused but he fled away. The victim was taken to Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and thereafter to Tata Hospital where he died. In his cross examination he has stated that the accused belong to village Sakjori, which is at a distance of half an hour from their village. House of the deceased was about 100 meter from the house of P.W.2. He further states in para 11 that Baga used to live with his wife and there were no children out of their wedlock. House of the deceased was about 100 meter from the house of P.W.2. He further states in para 11 that Baga used to live with his wife and there were no children out of their wedlock. At para 15 of his cross examination he further states that he woke up in the night on hearing shouts “Maar Diya” by Baga Birhor and then he also woke up his brother Sukua and asked him to accompany him. Houses of rest of the villagers were at a farther distance, therefore, they could not hear it. According to this witness, death occurred at about 6 am in the morning on Saturday. At para 21of his cross examination, he denies any dispute between the deceased Baga Birhor and accused Daniel Guria from before. He further states that it was complete dark at the time of occurrence when he went to Baga’s place and there is no electricity in their village. P.W.3 is Panja Birhor also of the same mauza Samtha under Jaraikela Police Station who in his deposition has stated that he reached the place of occurrence on hearing hulla(shout) and saw the victim Baga Birhor had an arrow pierced in his chest. He had seen the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence. He further states that Baga had told him that the accused Daniel shot him with an arrow. This witness has also stated that Daniel wanted to establish illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased and on being opposed, he was killed. He further states that the wife of Baga Birhor had fled away from the village at this point of time. In cross examination, he states that distance of his house from the house of the deceased is about 50-60 meter and there are few trees in between. When he had reached the place of occurrence, he saw Pinki Birhor, Sukua, Budhram and other villagers. He further states that Baga was assaulted in the night and the arrow would be in the house of Budhram. He further states at para 13 of his cross examination that he had seen the arrow embedded in the right side of the chest of the victim. In his statement at para 14, he states that Police recorded his statement earlier. He had not gone to the hospital along with Baga. He further states at para 13 of his cross examination that he had seen the arrow embedded in the right side of the chest of the victim. In his statement at para 14, he states that Police recorded his statement earlier. He had not gone to the hospital along with Baga. He further states that he had seen the victim in injured condition but had not seen the occurrence when the arrow was shot. P.W.4 Suklal Bhumij of Mauza Sakjori, P.S. Jeraikela claimed to have heard about the incidence from the villagers and that the deceased was shot with an arrow due to some dispute. However, he did not know who shot the arrow. Police had not recorded his statement earlier. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer, A.S.I. Vishwanath Prasad Gahlot who has identified the handwriting and signature of the then Officer-in-charge B. Manjhi on the fardbeyan of Pinki Birhor, which has been proved and marked as Ext.1; endorsement on the fardbeyan by the Officer-in-charge B. Manjhi in his signature and handwriting is marked as Ext. 1/1; formal F.I.R in the handwriting and signature of same officer-in-charge B. Manjhi has been proved and marked as Ext.2; he has also proved the carbon copy of the inquest report prepared in the handwriting of A.S.I. B.K.Thakur of Sakchi Police Station marked as Ext. 3 with objection. He claims to have recorded the statement of the informant Pinki Birhor and other witnesses such as P.W.1 Sukua Birhor, P.W.2 Budhram Birhor and inspected the place of occurrence. He has described the place of occurrence as at village Samtha Birhor Tola in front of the house of the informant. Other description of the place of occurrence has also been stated. He also claims to have recorded the statement of P.W.4 Suklal Bhumij and one Kamel Godsera. According to this witness, he came to know about the death of the victim at MGM Hospital and College, Jamshedpur during investigation and thereafter the inquest report was prepared and body was handed over to the family of the deceased. The accused was arrested on 27.04.2011 and charge-sheet was submitted on 11.07.2011. In his cross examination at para 11 he has stated that house of Lalit Lohra is near to the house of the victim while rest of the houses were at farther distance than that. The accused was arrested on 27.04.2011 and charge-sheet was submitted on 11.07.2011. In his cross examination at para 11 he has stated that house of Lalit Lohra is near to the house of the victim while rest of the houses were at farther distance than that. He further states that he had not taken the statement of Lalit Lohra during investigation. P.W.6 Medical Officer Dr. J. Srinivas Rao has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Baga Birhor, son of Sukra Birhor on 24.04.2011 at 11.30 am at MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur. The dead body was brought on 23.04.2011 at 3.30 pm and it was identified by Police Constable Arun Kumar Singh. On examination, he found arrow broken (metallic) part inserted into left front chest, bamboo stick-external part lying outside chest wall (insitu) lower part. He has found the following injuries: 1.Abrasion-1 cm x 1 cm present over left upper eyelid 2.Abrasion-2 cm x 2 cm over right lower back. 3.Stab would-Incised penetrating would-2 cm x 2 cm x Chest cavity deep present over left front chest out bamboo part lying outside chest-broken. Outside Chest-bamboo part-9 cm, inside chest 14 cm, metallic part-10 cm. Internal injury: 1. Incised cut of left front chest muscle, 6th and 7 th rib, cut of left side diaphragm, incised cut of spleen and inserted into anterior wall of stomach, incised cut of liver partially. Abdominal Cavity contained blood and blood clots. Opinion: 1.Injury noted above were antemortem 2.Exernal injury no.1 and 2 caused by hard and blunt object. 3.External injury no.3 and corresponding internal injuries removed and preserved as Exhibit. 4.Cause of death-Haemorrhage and shock 5.Times since death:24 hours to 36 hours approximately from the time of postmortem examination. The above mentioned injuries in ordinary course of nature to cause death.” The postmortem report was in his handwriting and bears his signature and were marked as Ext.4. In his cross examination at para 6 he has stated that he had not mentioned how the arrow with broken bamboo stick was preserved and what procedure was adopted for preserving the exhibit. It is also not mentioned in the report whether the Constable received the arrow with broken bamboo stick or not. It was also not mentioned whether arrow with broken bamboo stick was packetted, sealed or marked or not. It is also not mentioned in the report whether the Constable received the arrow with broken bamboo stick or not. It was also not mentioned whether arrow with broken bamboo stick was packetted, sealed or marked or not. External injury no.1 and 2 i.e., abrasion are simple injury and were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has denied that the report is unscientific and defective one which lacks several relevant information. 7. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, material evidence was put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegation and stated that he was falsely implicated. That he had no enmity with Budhram. He further stated that he had no enmity with Panja Birhor. He denied his involvement in the crime and claimed innocence. No defence witness or documentary evidence were adduced on behalf of the accused. 8. These were the material evidence on record on the basis of which learned Trial Court found the prosecution case proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and convicted the appellant for the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae has, during course of submissions, tried to puncture a number of holes in the prosecution story, inter alia, as under: According to her, the prosecution case is based on practically no evidence. The informant and the widow of the deceased has not come forward to support the prosecution case, though she was the only natural witness to the occurrence. The deceased died 2 days after the occurrence, but his statements were not recorded by the Investigating Officer nor Doctors who treated him in the hospital at Chaibasa initially and even at M.G.M. Hospital, Jamshedpur. P.W. 1 & 2 claimed that the victim had informed them as soon as they reached his house on hearing hulla in the night. However, P.Ws-1 & 2 have failed to satisfy the test which could bring their statement under the protection of section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. There is no certification that the victim was in a sound state of mind and in full consciousness to narrate the incidence to these prosecution witnesses. Prosecution witness no. 1 & 2 are the brother of the deceased and are related witness. There is no certification that the victim was in a sound state of mind and in full consciousness to narrate the incidence to these prosecution witnesses. Prosecution witness no. 1 & 2 are the brother of the deceased and are related witness. P.W.2 has stated at para-3 of his examination-in-chief that the incidence was seen by him and his brother Sukua Birhor and the wife of the deceased had not seen it. Thus, the whole prosecution case set up through the mouth of the informant is rendered doubtful. P.W.1 does not say that he had seen the occurrence with his own eyes, rather he had reached the place of occurrence on hearing shout and then, he was told by the victim that Daniel Guria/appellant herein, had shot an arrow upon him. P.W. 1 & 2 contradicts each other. 10. P.W.1 has denied that his statement was taken by the police earlier during the investigation, though it is otherwise. P.W.3 is also a hearsay witness, but he claims to have reached the place of occurrence on hearing shout and claims to have heard about the accused shooting arrow from the mouth of the victim. P.W. 2 & 3 have tried to attribute a new theory to the occurrence i.e. attempt by the accused to develop illicit relationship with the informant which was opposed by the husband of the informant. This is in contradiction to the theory projected in the fardbeyan that behavior of the accused in roaming around with a bow and arrow and hurling abuses was complained to the elder brother of the accused upon which the accused was beaten and told not to go to Birhor Tola. This was the reason for the anger on the part of the accused to kill Baga Birhor. P.W.4 has turned hostile. Though, the Investigating Officer admits that the house of Lalit Lohra was close to that of the victim, but Lalit Lohra was neither examined during the investigation, nor has been produced as a prosecution witness to support the factum of shouting or that the victim had narrated all these incidence after sustaining injuries to the prosecution witnesses No. 1, 2 & 3. 11. Learned Amicus Curiae has, in particular, referred to the medical evidence and submitted that the prosecution witnesses no. 11. Learned Amicus Curiae has, in particular, referred to the medical evidence and submitted that the prosecution witnesses no. 1, 2 & 3 and even the informant in her fardbeyan had asserted one injury on the chest by an arrow, but there are three external injuries found on the body of the deceased, two of which, injury no. 1 & 2 have not been explained by the prosecution. Injury no. 2 which is on the right lower back could be as a result of fall on the ground after the assault by an arrow in chest, but in that case, injury no. 1 which is present over left upper eye lid is inexplicable. Prosecution witness no. 3 who claims to have seen the victim and heard from him about the occurrence, however described the injury on the right side of the chest at para-13 of his cross-examination. The presence of P.W.3 at the place of occurrence is therefore also rendered doubtful. The prosecution has also not been able to explain as to why statement of the victim was not taken before his death, though he survives for about 2 days. It is all the more relevant as the P.W. 1, 2 & 3 claim protection under section 32 of the Evidence Act. The Medical officer at Chaibasa Hospital where the victim was first taken or the Doctor at M.G.M. Hospital at Jamshedpur have also has not been examined by the prosecution to show that the victim was in a stage of consciousness or could have been in a stage of consciousness on account of such injury and made the statements before P.W.1, 2 & 3 which are in the nature of narration of a dying declaration on the part of the victim. 12. On the basis of the detailed discussion of the evidence as above, learned Amicus has tried to prove her point that the case is based on no evidence in the eye of law. The fact that the victim died as a result of arrow injury in his chest, in itself, is not sufficient to nail this accused/appellant as the perpetrator of the crime to face conviction and sentence for life. The impugned judgment and order of sentence is therefore fit to be set aside, since the prosecution case suffers from serious doubt. 13. The fact that the victim died as a result of arrow injury in his chest, in itself, is not sufficient to nail this accused/appellant as the perpetrator of the crime to face conviction and sentence for life. The impugned judgment and order of sentence is therefore fit to be set aside, since the prosecution case suffers from serious doubt. 13. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in support of the impugned conviction, has relied upon the material evidence on record as well. According to him, P.W. 1, 2 & 3 have consistently stated that the victim had narrated to them about the involvement of the accused in assaulting him with one shot of arrow injury in his chest as soon as they reached the place of occurrence on hearing hulla at 3.00 am in the night. The victim was thereafter taken to Chaibasa Hospital and to the M.G.M. Hospital at Jamshedpur where he died during treatment after 1 ½ days. However, the injury on the chest through an arrow shot, as described by the Medical Officer, P.W.6, do not show that it was of such nature which could have rendered the victim completely unconscious immediately after the assault and made him incapable of making any statement to the prosecution witnesses who had arrived at the scene immediately thereafter. There is no reason to doubt the statement of P.W. 1, 2 & 3 in proving the dying declaration of the victim. The defence has not been able to show that the victim had remained unconscious during treatment for one day and more and that his statement made before P.W. 1, 2 & 3 were not the last dying declaration or statement made before he died. The medical evidence clearly corroborates the single arrow shot injury on the left side of the chest of the victim, as described by P.W. 1 & 2 and narrated through the mouth of the informant in the fardbeyan, which has also been adduced as Ext.1 by the prosecution without objection. Birhor Community is antiquated and absence of the informant during trial, may be for social reasons, should not dilute the prosecution story in case other prosecution witnesses are truthful and reliable. Injury no. 1 and 2 are described as simple in nature and could be the consequence of the fall on the ground after the victim was shot by an arrow by the accused/appellant from close distance. Injury no. 1 and 2 are described as simple in nature and could be the consequence of the fall on the ground after the victim was shot by an arrow by the accused/appellant from close distance. The prosecution evidence has to be read in its entirety and minor inconsistencies are not to be read out of the context to disbelieve the whole case. If the consistencies are minor and in the form of pebble, they have to be tread over. If they are like boulders, they have to be jumped over. As such, conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is fully proved as the prosecution case does not suffer from any iota of doubt. Appeal is fit to be rejected. 14. We have considered the submissions of learned Amicus Curiae and learned Additional Public Prosecutor; gone through the entire material evidence on record and also perused the impugned judgment. We have analyzed the entire prosecution evidence on record and minutely scrutinized it in order to form an opinion whether the prosecution had been able to establish its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Upon intensive analysis of the prosecution evidence, we are in a position to observe as under: The incidence is said to have occurred at around 3.00 am in the night in the house of the Informant. The accused/appellant is stated to have reached there armed with bow and arrow as he was in the habit of roaming around and hurling abuses in the Birhor Tola as per the case of the informant stated in the fardbeyan. The informant has not appeared surprisingly to depose in favour of her own case, but her fardbeyan has been proved as Ext.1 by the prosecution. The fardbeyan projects a theory that the victim, husband of the Informant, had complained about the behaviour of the accused to his elder brother that he used to roam around with bow and arrow in the Birhor Tola and hurl abuses, upon which, the accused was beaten by his elder brother and warned not to go to Birhor Tola. P.W. 1, 2 & 3 however do not subscribe to that theory. As per P.W. 2 & 3, the dispute was on account of forays made by the accused to develop illicit relationship with the informant/wife of the victim which on being opposed by the victim Baga Birhor led to the incidence. P.W. 1, 2 & 3 however do not subscribe to that theory. As per P.W. 2 & 3, the dispute was on account of forays made by the accused to develop illicit relationship with the informant/wife of the victim which on being opposed by the victim Baga Birhor led to the incidence. This is therefore completely a new story to support the motive or reason behind the crime. P.W. 1, 2 & 3, all claim to have reached the place of occurrence upon hearing shout and asserted that the deceased had informed him about the occurrence that the accused Daniel Guria had shot him with an arrow. These three prosecution witnesses do not say that the incidence was informed to them by the informant also who claims to be present when the arrow was shot by the accused on the chest of her husband. P.W.2 in particular at para 3 states that he and P.W.1 Sukua Birhor had seen the occurrence and that wife of the victim i.e., the informant had not seen it. P.W.1 and 2, both are the brothers of the victim and are related witness. Statement of P.W.2 renders the assertion of the informant made in the fardbeyan doubtful whether she was present at the place of occurrence when her husband was shot at by the accused. These three witnesses claimed that the assault by the accused Daniel Guria was narrated to them by the victim himself. However, in their testimony there are no other assertions to the effect that the victim was in state of consciousness at that point of time in order to narrate the incidence to them. We find that the victim had survived for about 1 ½ days after the assault. He was taken to the hospital at Chaibasa from where he was referred to the MGM Hospital, Jamshedpur. However, prosecution has not been able to show that the victim remained in a state of consciousness throughout even during treatment or that he had lost consciousness just after the assault. It is thus difficult for the Court to accept that such a statement was made by him just after the incidence and remained as the last statement by the victim to be treated as a dying declaration in order to give a protection under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. 15. It is thus difficult for the Court to accept that such a statement was made by him just after the incidence and remained as the last statement by the victim to be treated as a dying declaration in order to give a protection under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. 15. In order to satisfy ourselves, in terms of the provisions under Section 172 of the Cr.P.C, on perusal of the case diary, we find that P.W.1 and 2 were examined during investigation by the Police but none of these two witnesses have stated there in that the victim had narrated to them the name of the accused as the perpetrator of the assault upon him. As per Section 172 (2) of the Cr.P.C. the case diary can be used by the Court to aid it in enquiry or trial but not as evidence, [See (1999) 4 SCC 621 , State of Kerala Vrs. Babu and others]. The question therefore becomes all the more significant whether P.W.1 and 2 were really witness to the last statement made by the victim for being treated as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. This fact assumes more significance for the reason that the informant has failed to turn up and support her own case, though she could be an eye witness to the occurrence and was a natural witness being the wife of the victim (deceased). We find that P.W.4 has been declared hostile as he does not support the case of the prosecution. From the medical evidence on record proved by P.W.6 Dr. J. Srinivas Rao who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Baga Birhor, it is apparent that the deceased had 3 external injuries on his body. Injury no.1 and 2 as described above, though were simple in nature, but have not been explained by the prosecution. The prosecution case has been of one single arrow injury on the left side of the chest of the victim Baga Birhor. P.W.1, 2 and 3 have also not spoken of any other injury on the body of the deceased though they claimed to have reached the place of occurrence immediately on hulla. 16. The prosecution case has been of one single arrow injury on the left side of the chest of the victim Baga Birhor. P.W.1, 2 and 3 have also not spoken of any other injury on the body of the deceased though they claimed to have reached the place of occurrence immediately on hulla. 16. We are inclined to treat it as a minor inconsistency in the statement of P.W.3 in his cross examination at para 13 that he had seen the arrow injury on the right side of the chest on consideration of the totality of facts and evidence on record. However, non-explanation of the other two injuries on the body of the deceased renders the statements of P.W.1, 2 and 3 claiming themselves to be witness to the dying declaration doubtful. We are at a surprise that though the victim was taken to prestigious hospital i.e., MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur on the date of occurrence itself and died during treatment but surprisingly the broken (metallic part) of the arrow inserted in his left front chest remained intact till it was removed during post mortem examination by P.W.6. This is relevant in the facts of the case to the extent that prosecution ought to have shown the stage of consciousness of the victim while undergoing treatment or that he could have lost consciousness just after the incidence was narrated by him to the P.W.1, 2 and 3. 17. In the face of such serious infirmities in the prosecution case and the doubt created about the statements of P.W.1, 2 and 3 as witness to the dying declaration and further the absence of the informant, wife of the deceased to support her own prosecution case set up in the fardbeyan added together with the different theories of the motive of the crime, we are compelled to form an opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. 18. In the aforesaid circumstances and for the detailed reasons recorded herein above, we are unable to uphold the conviction recorded against the sole appellant herein by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.05.2015 and order of sentence dated 29.05.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 230 of 2011 is hereby set aside. Appellant Daniel Guria is in jail. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.05.2015 and order of sentence dated 29.05.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 230 of 2011 is hereby set aside. Appellant Daniel Guria is in jail. He is directed to be released forthwith from custody, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent to the Court below forthwith. 20. Before parting, we record our appreciation for the valuable assistance accorded by the learned Amicus Curiae in this case. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee would ensure that the legal remuneration of the learned Amicus Curiae are duly paid within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of an application along with a certified copy of this judgment.