Ganga Ram Banra @ Majhi Banra vs State Of Jharkhand `

I.A. No. 1615 of 2024

Since we are already hearing this appeal on merit, I.A. No. 1615 of 2024 is dismissed.

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 633 of 2017

Heard the parties.

The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2017 and order of sentence dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2016, whereby the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302/34 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence under Section 201/34 of IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that neither there is eye witness to the occurrence nor there is any legal evidence to implicate these appellants in this case. The only material is the recovery of ‘sickle’ claimed to be murder weapon, based on the confessional statement of these appellants. This circumstance by itself cannot be a ground to convict these appellants for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State, has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the sickle was sent to the forensic science laboratory along with the blood stained soil. The blood found in the sickle and also in the soil were human blood of Group-B. She also submits that there was some dispute between the appellants and the deceased which culminated in the murder.

The FIR is at the instance of the Village Munda who had informed that an unknown dead-body was lying in the field of Motka Banra. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of Village Munda, Muffasil Pandrasali P.S. Case No. 121 of 2015 was instituted under Section 302 and 201/34 of IPC against unknown. In the FIR, there is nothing to suggest that these appellants were remotely involved in the occurrence.

Police during investigation through the local spy came to know that it is these appellants who were involved in commission of murder. On the basis of their confessional statement, sickle, which was blood stained, was recovered from an open place i.e. paddy field which is situated near the house of one Ghasi Ram Banra. On that basis, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 302, 201/34 of IPC and the appellants were put on trial.

After the charges were framed, the prosecution, in order to prove the case has examined 10 witnesses and relevant documents were also exhibited which are Ext.1 to 10 Series. After recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. defence was of innocence.

After going through the evidence, we find that none of the witnesses had stated that they had seen the appellants committing the murder nor anyone of them stated that these appellants were seen in company of the deceased at any point of time. Further PWs 5 and 6 stated that the deceased was missing from the village since few days. They identified the deceased to be Siteshwar Hembrom @ Tinku from his photograph as PW 6 is none but the father of the deceased. None of the witnesses stated about any dispute between these appellants and the deceased.

The only circumstance to implicate these appellants in this case is that after they were arrested, their confessional statements were recorded one after another, wherein they disclosed that they have committed the murder of the deceased and sickle was recovered on the confessional statement of these appellants from an open field. The sickle was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with blood stained earth. The blood group found in the sickle matched with the blood group of the blood stained earth and it was the opinion of the expert that the same is human blood. PW 1 is the seizure witness. He stated that the sickle and blood stained soil and one motorcycle were seized by the police in his presence.

PW 3 is also the seizure witness but he was declared hostile, as he stated that his statement was not recorded by the police during investigation.

From the evidence of seizure witness-PW 1, we find that though he had stated that in his presence, the sickle and the blood stained earth were seized, but had not stated that at the time of seizure these appellants were present and on their pointing out, the materials were seized. Be it noted, that the specific case of the prosecution is that on pointing out of these appellants, the sickle was recovered from an open place i.e. paddy field near the house of Ghasi Ram Banra. It is the Investigating Officer who had stated that on pointing out of these appellants, the materials were recovered but this fact has not been stated by PW 1. The prosecution has not proved the motive to commit the murder nor has produced any witness to substantiate that the deceased was in company of these appellants soon before death.

These infirmities cast cloud on the recovery of weapon of offence on the disclosure of the appellants. Thus, we conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of these appellants in the crime beyond all reasonable doubts. Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside and this Criminal Appeal is allowed.

The appellants, who are in custody, are directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.