Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 64 (JHR)

Ladho Singh @ Ladhu Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-01-08

H.C.MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 30th June, 2006, and order of sentence dated 01.07.2006, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. No. 279 of 2005, whereby, the appellant 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. 500/- for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Dulo Devi, the mother of the deceased Shankar Singh, recorded at village Bhalmanda, P.S. Raidih, District Gumla, on 9.10.2005 at about 11.00 hours, wherein, she has stated that on the previous day in the evening at about 7.00 p.m., her son Shankar Singh was assaulted by tangi by the accused Ladho Singh outside her house. Upon the alarm raised by her, the accused fled away. She informed the villagers in the night, but could not go to the police station. On the next day, she informed her other son, who was residing at village Silam, and thereafter, she was going to the police station along with her son, when they met the police party in the way, at village Bhalmanda, where her fardbeyan was recorded. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Raidih P.S. Case No. 60 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 682 of 2005, was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the sole accused Ladho Singh, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, the 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, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O.; and the Doctor, conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Out of the material witnesses examined, PW 4 Sitaram Singh, PW 5 Kalawati Devi. 5. In course of trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O.; and the Doctor, conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Out of the material witnesses examined, PW 4 Sitaram Singh, PW 5 Kalawati Devi. PW 7 Balu Singh and PW 8 Birsa Singh have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case at all. PW 7 Balu Singh. however. has admitted to be the witness to the inquest report and the seizure list relating to seizure of tangi and bloodstained soil from the place' of occurrence. on which he had put his thumb impression. 6. PW 1 Nageshwar Singh is the brother of the deceased. and he is only the hearsay witness. stating that he was informed about the occurrence by his mother in village Silam. that the accused Ladho Singh had committed the murder of his brother. assaulting him by tangi He is also the witness to the inquest report and the seizure list. on which. he has identified his signature. which were marked Exts. 1 and 2 respectively. In his cross-examination. this witness has admitted the enmity between the parties. stating that this accused had lodged a case for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code upon him. with the allegation of assaulting and injuring the accused Ladho Singh and his mother. and in that case. he was in jail custody for about three months. He has denied the suggestion of falsely implicating the accused due to this enmity. 7. PW 2 Bulo Devi is the informant and the mother of the deceased. who has though supported the case as eye-witness to the occurrence. but she has made substantial improvement in her statement given before the police. and has stated that she had seen two accuse. persons. namely. the present appellant Ladho Singh and one Birsa Singh assaulting her son by tangi She informed the villagers on the next day and also went to village Silam to inform her other son. with whom she went to the Police Station. Police came to see the dead body. and thereafter her fardbeyan was recorded. persons. namely. the present appellant Ladho Singh and one Birsa Singh assaulting her son by tangi She informed the villagers on the next day and also went to village Silam to inform her other son. with whom she went to the Police Station. Police came to see the dead body. and thereafter her fardbeyan was recorded. She has clarified in her cross-examination that when she had gone to, the police station along with her son, she was detained there, and police came and saw the dead body and after returning back from the place of occurrence, the police had recorded her fardbeyan. Her attention was drawn towards her statement made before the police, and she has stated that she had given the statement before the police that the accused Birsa had assaulted her son by tangi, and has further clarified that the accused Birsa had assaulted her son by tangi twice. She has denied the suggestion that when she saw the dead body of her son in the morning, she falsely implicated the accused in connivance with her son Nageshwar. 8. PW 3 Dr Saurabh Prasad had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 9.10.2005, and had found the following injuries on the dead body :- (i) Complete avulsion of facial muscles and scalp up to saggittal sutures above and lower border of mandible below. Both eye balls were absent from the eye sockets. (ii) Incised wound extending between both sternomastoids at the level of thyroid cartilage. All the major vessels and trachea were cut through and through. (iii) Right parietal bone fracture 4" in length over mid of vertex with brain matter out. (iv) Multiple lacerated wound over abdomen. This witness has stated that the injuries Nos. (ii) & (ill) may be the cause of death either in isolation or combination. Injuries Nos. (ii), (iii) & (iv) were antemortem in nature and injury No. (i) was post-mortem in nature. This witness has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.-3. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the injuries Nos. (i) & (iv) may be caused by wild animal, and the injury No. (iii) may also be caused by animal bite. 9. PW 6 Radha Shukla is the La. of the case. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the injuries Nos. (i) & (iv) may be caused by wild animal, and the injury No. (iii) may also be caused by animal bite. 9. PW 6 Radha Shukla is the La. of the case. This witness has stated that on 9.10.2005, he was posted at Raidih Police Station, on which date, there was an information by way of rumour that one person was murdered in village Kerakona. He made sanha entry about the information and proceeded towards the place of occurrence. While they reached near village Bhalkanda, one lady Bulo Devi stopped the police jeep and she informed him about the occurrence. Her fardbeyan was recorded by him and he has proved the fardbeyan, which was marked Ext.-4. He saw the dead body at the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report, which also he has proved, and same was marked Ext.-5. He had also recovered one tangi and bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence, and prepared the seizure list, which he has proved and the seizure list was marked Ext.-6. He has given the details of place of occurrence. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused while he was coming out of his house. He has proved the formal FIR, which was marked Ext.-7, and has also proved the confessional statement of the accused, which was marked Ext.-8. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that in the inquest report it finds mentioned that the dead body was eaten by the animals. His attention was drawn towards the statement of the informant and he has stated that the informant had not stated before him that the deceased was assaulted by Birsa Singh by tangi He has also stated that the village Kerakona is surrounded by forest from all the sides and it is an extremist infested area. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 10. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC, in which, he has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the sole accused had been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court below as aforesaid. 11. 10. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC, in which, he has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the sole accused had been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court below as aforesaid. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, the prosecution case rests on the evidence of sole eye-witness PW 2 Bulo Devi, who is the informant in the case and the mother of the deceased, and her evidence is absolutely non-trustworthy. He has submitted that though the FIR was lodged making allegation against the sole accused, but in her evidence, she has made allegation against two accused persons and in her cross-examination, she has specifically stated that the assaults by tangi was made by the other co-accused Birsa Singh, who had neither been named as the accused, nor has faced the trial. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the conviction of the appellant on the evidence of the sole eyewitness could not be sustained, and it is a fit case, in which, the appellant ought to have been given at least the benefits of doubt. 12. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the eye-witness PW 2 Bulo Devi has supported the case against the present appellant also, and her evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence ofPW 3 Dr. Saurabh Prasad, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-3. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below, worth any interference by this Court. 13. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the evidence on record, we find that PW 2 Bulo Devi is the sole eye-witness, supporting the prosecution case. 13. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the evidence on record, we find that PW 2 Bulo Devi is the sole eye-witness, supporting the prosecution case. Though in her fardbeyan, she had made allegation only against this appellant to have assaulted the deceased by tangi, but she has substantially changed her statement in the Court, stating that she had seen the present appellant and one Birsa Singh assaulting the deceased by tangi In her cross-examination, she has also stated that she had given the statement before the police also that the accused Birsa had assaulted her son by tangi. but this fact is not supported by the I.O, PW 6 Radha Shukla, who has clearly stated that no such statement was given by the informant before him. She has not even rightly stated about the place, where her fardbeyan was recorded by police, stating that her fardbeyan was recorded at the police station, whereas the fact remains that it was recorded at the village Bhalmanda, while she was going to the police station. PW I Nageshwar Singh, who is the own brother of the deceased, has clearly admitted the enmity with the accused, stating that he was accused for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in a case lodged by the present accused, in which, he was in custody for about three months. Though there is denial of the suggestion of falsely implicating the accused due to this enmity, but the fact remains that it is quite doubtful whether the informant had actually seen the occurrence. The evidence of the I.O., PW 6 Radha Shukla shows that the dead body was eaten by the animals, and this fact is also supported by PW 3 Dr. Saurabh Prasad, who had conducted the post-morten): examination on the dead body .of the deceased. Had the informant seen the occurrence. she would have protected the dead body of her son from the animals. As such, there appears to be string' of truth in the suggestion given by 'the defence to the informant. PW 2 Bulo Devi, that when she saw the dead body of her son in the morning, she falsely implicated the accused in connivance with her son Nageshwar. she would have protected the dead body of her son from the animals. As such, there appears to be string' of truth in the suggestion given by 'the defence to the informant. PW 2 Bulo Devi, that when she saw the dead body of her son in the morning, she falsely implicated the accused in connivance with her son Nageshwar. In any view of the matter, the evidence of the informant PW 2 Bulo Devi, is not at all trustworthy, and the conviction of the accused could not be based on her uncorroborated evidence alone. All the other independent witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case at all. In the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the appellant ought to have been given at least the benefits of doubt. 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. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 30th June, 2006, and the order of sentence dated 01.07.2006, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. No. 279 of 2005, convicting and sentencing the appellant Ladho Singh @ Ladhu Singh, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set-aside. Consequently, the appellant is given the benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is in custody undergoing the sentence. He is directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 15. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed.