Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '111445',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '111445',
		(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jitan Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand - Citation 111445 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '111445',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Jitan Marandi',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Jitan Marandi Vs. The State of Jharkhand',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-12-02',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.</p><p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.</p><p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.</p><p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”</p><p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.</p><p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.</p><p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.</p><p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.</p><p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”</p><p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.</p><p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Jharkhand',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '111445',
	(int) 1 => 'jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/111445/jitan-marandi-vs-state-jharkhand'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1 Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 271 of 2015 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005) ----- Jitan Marandi, son of Muchu Marandi, Resident of village-Badki Kumhria, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ….... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- Per, S. Chandrashekhar, J: Aggrieved of judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 01.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The prosecution case unfolds in the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi who is father of the deceased-Budhni Devi. He has stated before the Officer-in-Charge of Bengabad police station that on 16.04.2005 his daughter had gone to forest for picking up forest wood. When he came back home he found his wife weeping, who informed him that Budhni Devi has not come back home. The informant alongwith the villagers went to forest in search of his daughter when he found Bishun Soren, Arjun Marandi, his son and Churki Devi bringing dead body of his daughter-Budhni Devi. On enquiry they told him that Samoli Devi has informed them that accused-Jitan Marandi outraged the modesty of Budhni Devi and when she complained of this to Samoli Devi, Jitan Marandi killed her by strangulating with saree.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sukra Marandi First Information Report being Bengabad P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 was registered on 17.04.2005 against the 2 appellant-Jitan Marandi under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the court took cognizance of the offence under section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 13.02.2006 for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, however, the informant-Sukra Marandi and the investigating officer were not examined. Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Relying on the evidence of Samoli Devi which is allegedly corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused to the hilt. The learned trial Judge has found corroboration from evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, on the point of rape and murder. The appellant-Jitan Marandi has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for life for offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 376 IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 201 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have carefully scrutinized the materials on record. Having heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP what we are compelled to observe is, that not only the court, the investigating officer and the public prosecutor have also failed to discharge their statutory duty. In “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in (2002) 1 SCC655 the Supreme Court has pointed out that the presence of the investigating officer at the time of trial is essential. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial for their examination. On failure on the part of the investigating officer to produce the witnesses, it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the investigating officer to compel presence of the witnesses during the trial. Mr. Arun 3 Kumar Pandey, the learned APP submits that steps were taken for examination of the informant and the investigating officer, however, the fact remains that these two witnesses were not examined during the trial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. In several judgments the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the erring investigating officers, one of the notable judgments is “State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Ors” reported in (2014) 5 SCC108 7. Role of the public prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be over-emphasized than what has been said in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC602and in “Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1991) 1 SCC212 8. The record of Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005 reveal that except the post-mortem examination report the prosecution has failed to exhibit any material document. Neither the fardbeyan nor the First Information Report nor the Inquest Report was produced and proved by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005. The investigating officer, the public prosecutor and above all the court, all blissfully closed their eyes and acted in a manner contrary to the statutory duty on them. In “Jones Vs. National Coal Board”, reported in 1957 (2) QB55 Lord Denning has observed, “it's very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage around her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.....”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>9. In the aforesaid factual background, when we examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to support the charge of rape and murder framed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2005, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant. The so-called eye-witness-Samoli Devi is not an eye-witness.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>10. In her examination-in-chief in the court Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 has stated that when she was sitting near Banyan tree, deceased-Budhni Devi informed her about rape. 4 She has not claimed herself a witness to the occurrence. Insofar as murder of Budhni Devi is concerned, admittedly she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>11. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has admitted that on the date of occurrence only deceased- Budhni Devi and the appellant- Jitan Marandi met her. She has admitted that she did not raise halla (alarm) rather, she came home and informed the parents of the deceased. At this stage, it needs to be pointed out that the informant has not stated that P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence. Infact, he has stated that when he came back home his wife informed him that Budhni Devi who had gone to the forest to pick up forest woods has not come back home. In her cross-examination, P.W.-3 has deposed that Budhni Devi had gone to forest with a tangi for cutting the forest wood and the Choukidar had taken away the tangi, however, the said Choukidar was not examined by the prosecution. She has also admitted that before the alleged occurrence, Jitan Marandi never teased Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>12. When statement of P.W.-3 is compared with the deposition of Bishun Soren-P.W.-2, we find material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses. P.W.-2 has deposed that Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 informed him about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m., whereupon they started search of the deceased- Budhni Devi. The occurrence is of 16.04.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and if it is accepted that P.W. 3 informed about the occurrence at about 12.00 p.m. on 17.04.2005, the prosecution has not explained this delay. The contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reflected also in the deposition of Arjun Marandi-P.W. 5, who has stated that they waited for the deceased-Budhni Devi till 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon and when they met Samoli Devi-P.W.-3 they started search for the Budhni Devi. He claims that the dead body was found at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening. Interestingly, during his cross-examination he has deposed that they met Samoli Devi in the forest (paragraph no.8). This witness has also admitted in his 5 cross-examination that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>13. Infact, none of the witnesses has claimed that they have seen the appellant-Jitan Marandi committing rape and murder of the deceased-Budhni Devi.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>14. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (1973) 2 SCC793it has been observed that, “....Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.....”',
	(int) 12 => '<p>15. Ignoring the aforesaid fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence and duty of the court under section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that, “Further, I find absolutely no reason for false implication of Jitan Marandi and witnesses have also said that they were not at inimical term with Jitan Marandi”. On this, it needs to be reminded that it is the legal satisfaction of the court and not the moral or personal satisfaction of a Judge which should decide a case before him. The learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded a finding that Somali Devi has seen the occurrence of rape. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Budhni Devi has deposed that “it is very difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not”. During the post-mortem examination the doctor has not found soil, mud or flesh in the nail of the dead body. It is also not a finding recorded by the doctor that the saree with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated bore stretches, which normally should occur in such a case. Cause of death has been found asphyxia due to strangulation, however, the post-mortem examination report does not reveal any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. Non-examination of the investigating officer has certainly caused serious prejudice to the accused insofar as place of occurrence, the story of search of the deceased floated by the prosecution and recovery of dead body are concerned. 6 Further, the appellant-accused has suffered serious prejudice on account of his superficial examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which the following four cryptic questions were put to him; iz0- D;k vkius lkf{k;ksa dk C;ku lquk\ iz0- vkids fo:) vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS vkids fnukad 16-4-05 dks tq:u fonk taxy Fkkuk csaxkckn ftyk fxfjMhg esa cq/kuh nsoh tks ydMh dkVus xbZ Fkh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k oks /kedh fn;k fd vxj fdlh ds ikl f'kdk;rs dh rks tku ls ekj dj lekIr dj nsxsaA iz0- vkids fo:) ;g Hkh vkjksi ,oa lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk le; oks LFkku ij lk{; feVkus ds mns'; ls e`frdk cw/kuh dks lkMh xyk esa yisV dj ekj Mkyk \ iz0- lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ 16. Examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The purpose of examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecutions' evidence to him. It is a requirement of natural justice. In a case where important and material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the accused would suffer serious prejudice [“Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC116.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17. In the aforesaid factual background and the law laid  down  by the Supreme Court, when the  judgment of conviction  and  order  of  sentence  both  dated  01.04.2015  in  Sessions  Trial  No. 462 of 2005 are scrutinized, we find that these suffer from  serious infirmities in law. The appellant has been convicted for  offences under section 302, 376 and 201 IPC on the basis of mere  suspicion   raised   by   the   prosecution   witnesses,   which   obviously  cannot   form   the   foundation   for   conviction   of   an   accused   in   a  sessions trial.  7 18. Accordingly, judgment of conviction of the appellant  under sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and order of sentence, both  dated 01.04.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 462 of 2005 are set­aside.  The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 271 of 2015 stands allowed. The  appellant­Jitan Marandi, if not found wanted in connection to any  other case, shall be set free forthwith. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 02nd December, 2017 Tanuj/Pankaj/ A.F.R.