AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
The appellant in this appeal, has challenged the judgment by which, he has been convicted for committing the offence under Sections 302 & 324 of the I.P.C. vide judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2020 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Giridih and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-with default stipulation and R.I. for two years under Section 324 of the I.P.C. vide order of sentence dated 19.02.2020.
The prosecution case is that the informant was informed that his father has been murdered. It is the case that a person came to the shop of his father and suddenly gave a blow by the axe, on the neck, as a result of which, he died. When P.W.-1 came to save him, he was also assaulted by this person, as a result of which, he sustained severe injury and became unconscious. After, he regained his consciousness; he was taken to the Hospital, where he was treated.
Further, in the F.I.R., it has been mentioned that one person went to the hutments, and the people who were residing in the hutments caught hold of him as there was some blood stains on his clothes. Thereafter, people who caught hold of him handed over to the police identifying him to be the assailants who has committed the murder of the deceased and had injured P.W.-1. On this basis, the case was registered.
To prove the prosecution case, seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution which is as follows:-
P.W.-1 Chaitu Hansda @ Chaitu Manjhi
P.W.-2 Pairo Mahto
P.W.-3 Tribhuwan Mahto
P.W.-4 Hemlal Mahto
P.W.-5 Pritam Kumar Mahto (Informant)
P.W.-6 Dr. A.P.N. Deo
P.W.-7 Chandramohan Oraon (I.O.)
Apart from above oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced:-
Ext.-1 Written Report of the Informant (P.W.-5)
Ext.-2 Post-Mortem Report
Ext.-3 Death Inquest Report
Ext.-4 F.S.L. Report
Ext.-5 Formal F.I.R.
Ext.-6 Case Registration Endorsement
There is an eye-witness to the said occurrence, who is P.W.-1. He is also an injured witness. After going through the evidence of the P.W.-1, we find that he has stated that when he was in the shop, unknown person came to his shop and with the fawda (small spade) struck on the neck of this witness, as a result of which, he sustained injury and became unconscious. He regained his consciousness after one and half hour and when he came out and stayed in the hutments of the beggars and thereafter he was taken to the Hospital, where he was treated. Thereafter, he has stated that the same person had also assaulted the deceased Rohan Mahto, as a result of which, he died. No one has stated that the deceased was assaulted prior to the assault inflicted upon him or after him.
From paragraph No. 1 of his statement, we find that there is possibility that he was assaulted first. That be so, it was not possible for him to see the assault on the deceased, as he himself says that after he was assaulted, he became unconscious.
Further, another glaring aspect in his statement is at paragraph 3 where he stated that he cannot identify the person who has assaulted him but in paragraph No. 5 he has stated that he has identified the accused who was standing in the dock. Nowhere, he has stated that the person who was standing in the dock has assaulted him and committed the murder.
It is surprising that it is the prosecution case that the persons who are living in the hutment had caught hold of the appellant as there were some blood stains in his cloths and it was assumed that it is this appellant who has committed the murder but surprisingly none of the persons who caught him has been produced as a witness.
The I.O. (P.W.-7) Chandra Mohan Oraon in his evidence has clearly stated that he has not recorded the statement of any of the shopkeepers except P.W.-1 during investigation. This is also a very big lapse on the part of the prosecution.
Though, there is a F.S.L. report of the cloth which suggests that the same was stained with the human blood but whether that human blood was either of the P.W.-1 or of the deceased has not been substantiated. The murder weapon has also not been recovered.
So far as injury of P.W.-1 is concerned, we find that no doctor or no medical report has been produced to substantiate that P.W.-1 has sustained any injury or not.
In 313 Cr.P.C., this appellant has explained that he has not committed murder of any person but he admits that he was present at the place of occurrence. He admits that he has assaulted one person but he did not die. This fact clearly suggests that he admits his presence at the place of occurrence and he has assaulted one person. The person to whom he has assaulted is P.W.-1 but there is no material to implicate this appellant in commission of the murder of the deceased.
Thus, what has been held above creates a reasonable doubt about involvement of this appellant in this case. Since a doubt has been created, the same has to go in favour of the accused person.
Considering the above, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 & 324 of the I.P.C vide judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2020 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Giridih in S.T. No. 350 of 2014, is hereby set aside and accordingly, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court vide order of sentence dated 19.02.2020, is also set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed.
This Court, therefore, directs the appellant above named, to be released forthwith from custody, if not wanted in connection with any other case.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to concerned trial court for information and needful.