Janeshwar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/111274
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnNov-08-2017
AppellantJaneshwar Singh
RespondentState of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
1 in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi. cr. appeal (d.b.) no. 532 of 2007. (against the judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2007 and order of sentence dated 17.03.2007, passed by the additional sessions judge, ftc-ii, latehar, in s.t. no. 125 of 2005). …..... janeshwar singh ….. appellant. versus the state of jharkhand. ..… respondent. ------ present hon'ble mr. justice h.c. mishra hon'ble mr. justice ananda sen ------ for the appellant : mrs. supriya dayal. advocate. mr. anurag kashyap, advocate. for the state : mr. sanjay kumar pandney-ii, a.p.p. …...... by court:- heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned addl. p.p. for the state.2. the sole appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2007 and order of sentence dated 17.03.2007, passed by the learned additional sessions judge, ftc-ii, latehar, in s.t. no. 125 of 2005, whereby the sole 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 for the offence under section 302 of the indian penal code.3. the prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the the informant bhardul singh, who is the son of the deceased, recorded on 27.06.2005 at village sewan, police station manika, district latehar, at 13.30 p.m. according to the fardbeyan, on 26..06.2005, father of the informant was returning back from his in- laws' place and when he reached near his house, the accused janeshwar singh assaulted him by axe causing injury on him. the informant tried to save his father, but he was also threatened by the accused, whereupon he fled away from there. when he returned back to the place of occurrence along with his elder brother and other villagers, he found his father dead with multiple injuries. as to the cause of occurrence, it is stated that two sons of the accused had died by drowning in previous diwali, for which the accused has lodged a case against the informant, his father and his brother, in which they were also in jail. about two months earlier, they were released from the jail and due to this enmity the murder of the father of the informant was committed by the accused. on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, manika p.s. case no. 14 of 2005, corresponding to g.r. no. 240 of 2005, was instituted for the offence under section 302 of the indian penal code against the accused janeshwar singh and investigation was taken up. after investigation the police submitted the 2 charge-sheet in the case against the accused janeshwar singh.4. after commitment of the case to the court of session, charge was framed against the accused janeshwar singh 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. in course of trial, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses including doctor, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and the investigating officer of the case. out of the witnesses examined, p.w.1 hulas singh, p.w.3 mandular singh, p.w.4 mahavir singh, p.w.5 halkan singh and p.w.6 sudeshwar singh have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. p.w.2 subedar singh has deposed that he had no knowledge about the occurrence. the prosecution case has been supported only by the informant p.w.8 bhardul singh, and all other material witnesses examined by the prosecution have either turned hostile, or has stated that he had no knowledge about the occurrence.5. p.w.-8 bhardul singh is the informant of the case. this witness has stated that on the date of occurrence his father was returning from his in-laws' place and when he reached near his house, janeshwar singh met him. thereafter janeshwar singh went to his house, brought a tangi (axe) and a muzzle loading gun and he had assaulted his father by axe. this witness kept standing seeing the assault on his father and he did not go near his father due to fear. this witness has named seven witnesses, stating that they also came to the place of occurrence, but even then he did not go near his father to save him. he has stated that his father died at the spot and he saw the occurrence from a distance of about 100 feet and returned back. on the next date he went to the police station. he again stated that two sons of the accused had died by drowning, for which there was a case, in which this witness, his father and brother were sent to jail and for that his father has been murdered by the accused. he identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked ext.6. he has identified the accused in the court. in his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had gone to the manika police station at 5 a.m. in the morning, where his fardbeyan was recorded. he has stated that first his fardbeyan was recorded and thereafter the dead body was brought. he has denied the suggestion that his fardbeyan was not recorded at the police station. he has denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused. it may be stated that out of seven persons whom this witness has named to have reached the place of occurrence, two persons namely, mahavir singh and halkan singh have been examined in this case as p.w.4 and p.w.5 respectively, but as stated earlier, they turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case.6. p.w.-7 is dr. dilip kumar. this witness has stated that he had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 27.06.2005 at 5 p.m. and had found the following injuries on the dead body :- (i) one incised wound size 3”x1”x2” over right forearm. 3 (ii) one incised wound size 3 & 1/2” x 1”x2 & 1/2” over the lower part of abdomen with protrusion of intestines from the peritonial cavity. (iii) one incised wound size 4”x2”x3” over the right thigh. (iv) multipile sharp cut over right leg. (v) right ear lobule cut. (vi) one incised wound over neck size 2”x1”x1” on dissection protrusion of small gut from abdominal opening. he has stated that the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to the injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon such as may be tangi. he has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as ext.2.7. p.w.9 sheetal ravidas, p.w.10 awadh kumar yadav and p.w.11 bharat ram are the police officials, who have proved the fardbeyan, formal f.i.r. and the inquest report, which were marked exhibits in this case and they have also given the description of the place of occurrence. p.w.9 sheetal ravidas is the main investigating officer in the case, who had recorded the statements of the witnesses. he has also given the description of the place of occurrence and had arrested the accused.9. from the evidence of the police officials, it is apparent that no one had informed the police about the occurrence, rather it was only on a rumour on which the police had reached at the place of occurrence and had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant at the place of occurrence. the fardbeyan also shows that it was recorded at the place of occurrence at about 13.30 hours.10. the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure, in which he has denied the evidence against him.11. on the basis of the evidence on record and particularly on the evidence of the sole eye witness, accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 302 of the indian penal code.12. learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court below are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, none of the independent witnesses has supported the prosecution case, even though the occurrence had taken on a village road and according to the evidence of p.w.8 bhardul singh himself, several persons had witnessed the occurrence. it is submitted by the learned counsel that the enmity in this case is admitted and in that view of the matter the false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out. it is further submitted that even though in his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that he had tired to save his father, but in his evidence he has stated that he had seen the occurrence from a distance of about 100 feet and he had not tried to save his father and had returned back, which cannot be said to be the natural conduct of an eye witness, particularly the son of the person who was being assaulted. learned counsel also pointed out from the evidence of p.w.8 bhardul 4 singh that he has stated that his fardbeyan was recorded at the police station at 5 a.m., but the same is negated from the evidence of the police officers, who had stated that only on rumour they had visited the place of occurrence. even the f.i.r. shows that the fardbeyan was recorded at the village at 13.30 hours. it is further pointed out that in his evidence p.w.8 bhardul singh, has stated that the accused was also carrying muzzle loading gun at the time of occurrence, but there is no mention about the same in the f.i.r. learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the evidence of p.w.8 is not at all reliable and it is a fit case in which the appellant ought to have been given at least benefit of doubt.13. learned addl. p.p., appearing on behalf of the state on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that though the prosecution is supported only by sole eye witness, who is the son of the deceased, but the fact remains that his ocular evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the post-mortem report proved by him as ext.2. learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court below.14. having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that though the case is supported by the sole eye witness, p.w.8 bhardul singh, who is the son of the deceased, but the fact remains that the enmity is writ large between this witness and the accused. in the f.i.r. as well as in the evidence of p.w.8 bhardul singh, as to the cause of occurrence, it is stated that two children of the accused had died by drowning and there was a criminal case for that on the deceased on his sons, and it is claimed that for that enmity, murder of the deceased was committed. though in the evidence of p.w.8 bhardul singh, it is clearly stated that at the time of occurrence seven persons assembled there, but only two persons have been examined out of them, who have already turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. the other independent witnesses, who have been examined in this case have not at all supported the prosecution case and either turned hostile or has stated that he had no knowledge about the occurrence. though the informant bhardul singh has stated in his evidence that at the time of occurrence the appellant was armed with an axe and muzzle loading gun, but there is no whisper of muzzle loading gun in the fardbeyan. though the informant bhardul singh has also stated in his evidence that he reached at the police station at 5 a.m. in the morning, where his fardbeyan was recorded, but the police officials in their evidence have stated that they had visited the place of occurrence on rumour about the occurrence and not on the information given by the informant. the fact also remains that the fardbeyan of the informant was not recorded at the police station, rather it was recorded at the place of occurrence and that too at 13.30 hours and not at 5 a.m.15. for the foregoing reasons, we find that even though informant bhardul singh 5 has supported the case of prosecution as an eye witness to the occurrence, but his evidence does not inspire confidence so as to form the basis for finding the accused guilty and convicting him for the offence. indeed no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case, even though occurrence had taken place at 4.30 to 5 p.m. on a village road.16. in the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that even if the informant p.w.8 bhardul singh had supported the prosecution case, but the sole appellant was entitled at least to the benefits of doubt and in that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.17. for the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2007 and order of sentence dated 17.03.2007, passed by the learned additional sessions judge, ftc-ii, latehar, in s.t. no. 125 of 2005, are hereby, set aside. consequently, the accused janeshwar singh is given the benefits of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge. the accused 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.18. this appeal is accordingly, allowed. let the lower court records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. ( h.c. mishra, j.) (ananda sen, j.) high court of jharkhand at ranchi dated 8th of november, 2017. nafr/ sharma/
Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 532 of 2007. (Against the Judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2007 and Order of sentence dated 17.03.2007, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Latehar, in S.T. No. 125 of 2005). …..... Janeshwar Singh ….. Appellant. Versus The State of Jharkhand. ..… Respondent. ------ PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ------ For the Appellant : Mrs. Supriya Dayal. Advocate. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandney-II, A.P.P. …...... By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2007 and Order of sentence dated 17.03.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Latehar, in S.T. No. 125 of 2005, whereby the sole 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 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the the informant Bhardul Singh, who is the son of the deceased, recorded on 27.06.2005 at village Sewan, Police Station Manika, District Latehar, at 13.30 P.M. According to the fardbeyan, on 26..06.2005, father of the informant was returning back from his in- laws' place and when he reached near his house, the accused Janeshwar Singh assaulted him by axe causing injury on him. The informant tried to save his father, but he was also threatened by the accused, whereupon he fled away from there. When he returned back to the place of occurrence along with his elder brother and other villagers, he found his father dead with multiple injuries. As to the cause of occurrence, it is stated that two sons of the accused had died by drowning in previous Diwali, for which the accused has lodged a case against the informant, his father and his brother, in which they were also in jail. About two months earlier, they were released from the jail and due to this enmity the murder of the father of the informant was committed by the accused. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Manika P.S. Case No. 14 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 240 of 2005, was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Janeshwar Singh and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted the 2 charge-sheet in the case against the accused Janeshwar Singh.

4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused Janeshwar Singh 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. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses including Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and the Investigating Officer of the case. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 Hulas Singh, P.W.3 Mandular Singh, P.W.4 Mahavir Singh, P.W.5 Halkan Singh and P.W.6 Sudeshwar Singh have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. P.W.2 Subedar Singh has deposed that he had no knowledge about the occurrence. The prosecution case has been supported only by the informant P.W.8 Bhardul Singh, and all other material witnesses examined by the prosecution have either turned hostile, or has stated that he had no knowledge about the occurrence.

5. P.W.-8 Bhardul Singh is the informant of the case. This witness has stated that on the date of occurrence his father was returning from his in-laws' place and when he reached near his house, Janeshwar Singh met him. Thereafter Janeshwar Singh went to his house, brought a tangi (axe) and a muzzle loading gun and he had assaulted his father by axe. This witness kept standing seeing the assault on his father and he did not go near his father due to fear. This witness has named seven witnesses, stating that they also came to the place of occurrence, but even then he did not go near his father to save him. He has stated that his father died at the spot and he saw the occurrence from a distance of about 100 feet and returned back. On the next date he went to the Police Station. He again stated that two sons of the accused had died by drowning, for which there was a case, in which this witness, his father and brother were sent to jail and for that his father has been murdered by the accused. He identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked Ext.6. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had gone to the Manika Police Station at 5 A.M. in the morning, where his fardbeyan was recorded. He has stated that first his fardbeyan was recorded and thereafter the dead body was brought. He has denied the suggestion that his fardbeyan was not recorded at the Police Station. He has denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused. It may be stated that out of seven persons whom this witness has named to have reached the place of occurrence, two persons namely, Mahavir Singh and Halkan Singh have been examined in this case as P.W.4 and P.W.5 respectively, but as stated earlier, they turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case.

6. P.W.-7 is Dr. Dilip Kumar. This witness has stated that he had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 27.06.2005 at 5 P.M. and had found the following injuries on the dead body :- (i) One incised wound size 3”x1”x2” over right forearm. 3 (ii) One incised wound size 3 & 1/2” x 1”x2 & 1/2” over the lower part of abdomen with protrusion of intestines from the peritonial cavity. (iii) One incised wound size 4”x2”x3” over the right thigh. (iv) Multipile sharp cut over right leg. (v) Right ear lobule cut. (vi) One incised wound over neck size 2”x1”x1” On dissection protrusion of small gut from abdominal opening. He has stated that the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to the injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon such as may be tangi. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Ext.2.

7. P.W.9 Sheetal Ravidas, P.W.10 Awadh Kumar Yadav and P.W.11 Bharat Ram are the police officials, who have proved the fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. and the inquest report, which were marked exhibits in this case and they have also given the description of the place of occurrence. P.W.9 Sheetal Ravidas is the main Investigating Officer in the case, who had recorded the statements of the witnesses. He has also given the description of the place of occurrence and had arrested the accused.

9. From the evidence of the police officials, it is apparent that no one had informed the police about the occurrence, rather it was only on a rumour on which the police had reached at the place of occurrence and had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant at the place of occurrence. The fardbeyan also shows that it was recorded at the place of occurrence at about 13.30 hours.

10. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he has denied the evidence against him.

11. On the basis of the evidence on record and particularly on the evidence of the sole eye witness, accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, none of the independent witnesses has supported the prosecution case, even though the occurrence had taken on a village road and according to the evidence of P.W.8 Bhardul Singh himself, several persons had witnessed the occurrence. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the enmity in this case is admitted and in that view of the matter the false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that even though in his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that he had tired to save his father, but in his evidence he has stated that he had seen the occurrence from a distance of about 100 feet and he had not tried to save his father and had returned back, which cannot be said to be the natural conduct of an eye witness, particularly the son of the person who was being assaulted. Learned counsel also pointed out from the evidence of P.W.8 Bhardul 4 Singh that he has stated that his fardbeyan was recorded at the Police Station at 5 A.M., but the same is negated from the evidence of the Police Officers, who had stated that only on rumour they had visited the place of occurrence. Even the F.I.R. shows that the fardbeyan was recorded at the village at 13.30 hours. It is further pointed out that in his evidence P.W.8 Bhardul Singh, has stated that the accused was also carrying muzzle loading gun at the time of occurrence, but there is no mention about the same in the F.I.R. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the evidence of P.W.8 is not at all reliable and it is a fit case in which the appellant ought to have been given at least benefit of doubt.

13. Learned Addl. P.P., appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that though the prosecution is supported only by sole eye witness, who is the son of the deceased, but the fact remains that his ocular evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.2. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below.

14. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that though the case is supported by the sole eye witness, P.W.8 Bhardul Singh, who is the son of the deceased, but the fact remains that the enmity is writ large between this witness and the accused. In the F.I.R. as well as in the evidence of P.W.8 Bhardul Singh, as to the cause of occurrence, it is stated that two children of the accused had died by drowning and there was a criminal case for that on the deceased on his sons, and it is claimed that for that enmity, murder of the deceased was committed. Though in the evidence of P.W.8 Bhardul Singh, it is clearly stated that at the time of occurrence seven persons assembled there, but only two persons have been examined out of them, who have already turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. The other independent witnesses, who have been examined in this case have not at all supported the prosecution case and either turned hostile or has stated that he had no knowledge about the occurrence. Though the informant Bhardul Singh has stated in his evidence that at the time of occurrence the appellant was armed with an axe and muzzle loading gun, but there is no whisper of muzzle loading gun in the fardbeyan. Though the informant Bhardul Singh has also stated in his evidence that he reached at the Police Station at 5 A.M. in the morning, where his fardbeyan was recorded, but the police officials in their evidence have stated that they had visited the place of occurrence on rumour about the occurrence and not on the information given by the informant. The fact also remains that the fardbeyan of the informant was not recorded at the Police Station, rather it was recorded at the place of occurrence and that too at 13.30 hours and not at 5 A.M.

15. For the foregoing reasons, we find that even though informant Bhardul Singh 5 has supported the case of prosecution as an eye witness to the occurrence, but his evidence does not inspire confidence so as to form the basis for finding the accused guilty and convicting him for the offence. Indeed no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case, even though occurrence had taken place at 4.30 to 5 P.M. on a village road.

16. In the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that even if the informant P.W.8 Bhardul Singh had supported the prosecution case, but the sole appellant was entitled at least to the benefits of doubt and in that view of the matter, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

17. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2007 and Order of sentence dated 17.03.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Latehar, in S.T. No. 125 of 2005, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the accused Janeshwar Singh is given the benefits of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge. The accused 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.

18. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment. ( H.C. Mishra, J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated 8th of November, 2017. NAFR/ Sharma/