Ravindra Dubey @ Mohan Dubey And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Ms. Rakhi Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner nos. 1, 4 and 5. She submits that initially there were altogether seven petitioners. Name of petitioner nos. 2 and 6 were deleted vide order dated 17.06.2015 as they failed to surrender and petitioner no. 3 had died on 23.09.2019. Further, petitioner no. 7 had died on 04.05.2019.

The learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, altogether eight prosecution witnesses were examined. Amongst them, the independent witnesses who were co- villagers, total four in number, were declared hostile and the entire prosecution case was based on remaining four witnesses who were close relatives of the informant. She submits that the Investigating Officer of the case was not examined and the informant was also not examined as the informant had expired.

The learned amicus curiae further submits that it has come in evidence that there was land dispute between the parties and non-examination of the investigating officer and absence of any independent witness to support the prosecution case has not been properly considered by the learned court below while convicting the petitioners. She submits that this aspect of the matter may be considered and the petitioner nos. 1, 4 and 5 be acquitted.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State Ms. Ruby Pandey has opposed the prayer. She has referred to the trial court judgement ,para 12, 13, 15 and 16 and the findings recorded in the appellate court judgement to submit that the land which was involved in the present case belonged to P.W. 2 and the connected sale-deed was also exhibited. She submits that the manner of occurrence, the place of occurrence and the time of occurrence have been duly proved by the prosecution and merely because the prosecution witnesses are related to each other, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case and this aspect of the matter has been duly considered by the learned courts below who were careful enough to scrutinize the evidence on record and found that the witnesses of the prosecution were trustworthy. She submits that in such circumstances, even non-examination of the investigating officer is not fatal to the prosecution case.

So far as custody of the petitioner nos. 1, 4 and 5 are concerned, it has been indicated by the learned amicus curiae that the petitioner nos. 1 has remained in custody for a period from 17.11.1998 to 13.01.1999, petitioner no. 4 has remained in custody for a period from 05.04.1999 to 13.04.1999 and petitioner no. 5 has remained in custody from 12.01.1999 to 18.02.1999.

Arguments are concluded.

Put up this case on 07.09.2020 under appropriate heading.