Bahadur Mahto Vs. The State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/111250
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnNov-08-2017
AppellantBahadur Mahto
RespondentThe State of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi criminal appeal (db) no. 1183 of 2016 with i. a. no. 7362 of 2016 (against the judgment of conviction dated 26.7.2016 and order of sentence dated 29.7.2016 passed by learned addl. judicial commissioner-vi, ranchi, in sessions trial no. 312 of 2012). ------------- bahadur mahto …. …. appellant versus state of jharkhand .…. … respondent -------- for the appellant : m/s binod kumar singh & rajendra ram ravidas, advocates for the respondent : mr. s.k. tiwari, a.p.p. -------- present : hon’ble mr. justice h. c. mishra hon’ble mr. justice ananda sen ------- by court:- heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the state. though today this case is listed 'for orders' on the interlocutory application for granting bail to the appellant, but we find from the record that this appeal can be disposed of at this stage itself. the lcr is also available, and we have gone through it.2. this appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.7.2016 and order of sentence dated 29.7.2016, passed by the learned addl. judicial commissioner -vi, ranchi, in s.t. no. 312 of 2012, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and has been 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 imprisonment for life and a fine of rs. 5,000/- for the said offence. other two co-accused persons, who were also tried along the appellant for the same offence, have been acquitted of the charge.3. the prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the mother of the deceased, who alleged that her daughter was living with the accused bahadur mahto in live-in relationship after death of her first husband. since she was insisting the accused to marry her, she was done to death by the accused bahadur mahto with the help of his wife balmati devi and mother kunder devi. on the basis of this fardbeyan, narkopi p.s. case no. 47 of 2011 corresponding to g.r. no. 6287 of 2011, was instituted for the offence under sections 302 / 34 of the indian penal code, and investigation was taken up. after investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. -2- 4. after commitment of the case to the court of session, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offence under sections 302 / 34 of the indian penal code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. in course of trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the informant, who is mother of the deceased, who was examined as p.w.7, and the son of the deceased, who was examined as p.w.8. all the material witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. even the informant has stated that she has no knowledge as to how her daughter was killed. even from the evidence of the investigating officer, who has been examined as p.w.6, we find that there is nothing in his evidence to show that the dead body was found in the house of the appellant. the i.o. has only stated that he went to the place of occurrence and he saw the dead body there, but what was the place of occurrence has not been stated by the i.o.5. the court below only on the ground that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellant, has convicted him for the offence under section 302 of the indian penal code and sentenced him for the same offence. the other two accused, i.e., the wife and mother of the appellant, who also allegedly were residing in the same house, were acquitted of the charge by the trial court below.6. upon going through the record, we are surprised as to how the accused appellant has been convicted of the offence, when no prosecution witness, including the mother and the son of the deceased, has supported the case, and all of them have turned hostile. it is not the case that on the basis of confessional statement of this appellant any recovery was made. there is absolutely no recovery and there is no confessional statement of this appellant. still only on the ground that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellant, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the court below. from the materials on record, we are of the considered view that the trial court below has become hyper sensitive in convicting the appellant, which must have been avoided by the trial court below at all costs. this is clearly a case in which the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant. we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. -3- 7. for the foregoing discussions, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.7.2016 and order of sentence dated 29.7.2016, passed by the learned addl. judicial commissioner-vi, ranchi, in s.t. no. 312 of 2012, are hereby, set aside. consequently, the appellant bahadur mahto is found not guilty and he is acquitted of the charge. the appellant is in custody undergoing the sentence, let him be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.8. this appeal is accordingly allowed. consequently, the aforesaid interlocutory application also stands disposed of. let the lower court records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith along with a copy this judgment. (h.c. mishra, j.) (ananda sen, j.) jharkhand high court, ranchi dated the 8th november, 2017 nafr/r.kr. in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi acquittal appeal (db) no. 15 of 2012 samir kumar acharjee @ samir achayra ..... … appellant versus the state of jharkhand & others .…. … respondents -------- coram : hon’ble mr. justice h. c. mishra hon’ble mr. justice ananda sen ------ for the appellant : mr. sanjay kumar pandey, advocate for the state : mr. v.s. prasad, a.p.p. for the respondents- 2 to 3: m/s r.s. mazumdar, sr. advocate & mr. rajesh kumar, advocate -------- i.a. no. 8348 of 2017 9/ 08.11.2017 this interlocutory application has been filed, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. having heard learned counsels for the parties, i.e., the informant-appellant, the respondent state and accused-respondents, we hereby, grant leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 3.5.2012 passed by learned sessions judge, bokaro, in s.t. no. 258 of 2011. this interlocutory application is accordingly, allowed. acquittal appeal no.15 of 2012 this appeal will be heard. admit. since the private respondents have already appeared, no fresh notice needs to be issued. call for the lower court record. ( h. c. mishra, j.) (ananda sen, j.) r.kr.
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1183 of 2016 with I. A. No. 7362 of 2016 (Against the Judgment of conviction dated 26.7.2016 and Order of sentence dated 29.7.2016 passed by learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 312 of 2012). ------------- Bahadur Mahto …. …. Appellant Versus State of Jharkhand .…. … Respondent -------- For the Appellant : M/s Binod Kumar Singh & Rajendra Ram Ravidas, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, A.P.P. -------- PRESENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ------- By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. Though today this case is listed 'For Orders' on the interlocutory application for granting bail to the appellant, but we find from the record that this appeal can be disposed of at this stage itself. The LCR is also available, and we have gone through it.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 26.7.2016 and Order of sentence dated 29.7.2016, passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner -VI, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 312 of 2012, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and has been 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 imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the said offence. Other two co-accused persons, who were also tried along the appellant for the same offence, have been acquitted of the charge.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the mother of the deceased, who alleged that her daughter was living with the accused Bahadur Mahto in live-in relationship after death of her first husband. Since she was insisting the accused to marry her, she was done to death by the accused Bahadur Mahto with the help of his wife Balmati Devi and mother Kunder Devi. On the basis of this fardbeyan, Narkopi P.S. Case No. 47 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 6287 of 2011, was instituted for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. -2- 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the informant, who is mother of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.7, and the son of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.8. All the material witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. Even the informant has stated that she has no knowledge as to how her daughter was killed. Even from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W.6, we find that there is nothing in his evidence to show that the dead body was found in the house of the appellant. The I.O. has only stated that he went to the place of occurrence and he saw the dead body there, but what was the place of occurrence has not been stated by the I.O.

5. The Court below only on the ground that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellant, has convicted him for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him for the same offence. The other two accused, i.e., the wife and mother of the appellant, who also allegedly were residing in the same house, were acquitted of the charge by the Trial Court below.

6. Upon going through the record, we are surprised as to how the accused appellant has been convicted of the offence, when no prosecution witness, including the mother and the son of the deceased, has supported the case, and all of them have turned hostile. It is not the case that on the basis of confessional statement of this appellant any recovery was made. There is absolutely no recovery and there is no confessional statement of this appellant. Still only on the ground that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellant, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Court below. From the materials on record, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court below has become hyper sensitive in convicting the appellant, which must have been avoided by the Trial Court below at all costs. This is clearly a case in which the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant. We are of the considered view that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. -3- 7. For the foregoing discussions, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 26.7.2016 and Order of sentence dated 29.7.2016, passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 312 of 2012, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the appellant Bahadur Mahto is found not guilty and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is in custody undergoing the sentence, let him be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.

8. This appeal is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the aforesaid interlocutory application also stands disposed of. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy this Judgment. (H.C. Mishra, J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 8th November, 2017 NAFR/R.Kr. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 2012 Samir Kumar Acharjee @ Samir Achayra ..... … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .…. … Respondents -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Prasad, A.P.P. For the Respondents- 2 to 3: M/s R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate -------- I.A. No. 8348 of 2017 9/ 08.11.2017 This interlocutory application has been filed, seeking leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, i.e., the informant-appellant, the respondent State and accused-respondents, we hereby, grant leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal dated 3.5.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in S.T. No. 258 of 2011. This interlocutory application is accordingly, allowed. Acquittal Appeal No.15 of 2012 This appeal will be heard. Admit. Since the private respondents have already appeared, no fresh notice needs to be issued. Call for the Lower Court Record. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) R.Kr.