AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 18.01.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial
No. 45 of 2011, wherein the said Court acquitted both the respondents for commission of offence under Section 302, 307, 307, 460 & 394 of IPC 1860
for committing murder of one Mikhail Lakda, for attempting to commit murder of Vinay Lakda & Dipika Lakda and for committing the said offence,
did lurking house trespass in the house of Mikhail Lakda and again committing robbery of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs.15,000/-respectively.
As per the prosecution case, the date of incident is 15.01.2011 at 6:30 P.M. At that time Vinay Lakda, Dipika Lakda, Mikhail Lakda and Amelda
Lakda were taking food in the house and at the same time 4 unknown persons entered into the house and snatched Rs. 4,000/- from possession of one
Vinay and again they took money from Almirah of wife of Vinay. At the same time, they assaulted Mikhail Lakda, Vinay Lakda and Dipika Lakda by
axe and Mikhail succumbed to the injuries, while Vinay Lakda and Dipika Lakda managed to save their lives.
To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Vinay Lakda PW-1, Dipika Lakda PW-2 and Amlda Lakda PW-3
are the witnesses of the incident. FIR was lodged against the 4 unknown persons. As per version of Vinay Lakda PW-1, 4 unknown persons entered
into their house before commission of offence. Dipika Lakda deposed on the same line. She deposed that 4 persons covered their faces with shawl,
though, she deposed that she had a look of respondent No.1 Ridol Toppo, but there is no explanation as to why name of Ridol Toppo was not
mentioned in the FIR after commission of offence. Amelda Lakda PW-3 deposed on the same line and she did not identify anyone at the time of
commission of offence.
Now the point for consideration is whether the identification parade conducted in the present case is sufficient to bring home the guilt against any of
the respondents.
PW-12 D.P Bhupal was working as Executive Magistrate on 07.01.2012 at Tehshil, Jashpur. As per version of this witness, he conducted
identification in which Vinay Lakda and Dipika Lakda present, but no identification was done against the present Respondent No.1 Ridol Toppo.
When there was no occasion to see the real culprits of the incident, no witness was in a position to identify the present respondent.
The other piece of evidence is seizure of axe from respondent Ridol Toppo. One other Axe was seized from the spot and the same is not seized
from any respondents and therefore it is not incriminating circumstances against any of the respondents. The seized axe was sent for chemical
examination, but report is not found positive regarding human blood. The prosecution was under obligation to establish the substance regarding blood
group of the deceased in the said axe, but it is not substantiated by report of the laboratory, therefore, seizure of axe is also not helping the prosecution
to establish guilt against any of the respondents. So far as respondent No.2 Birjiniya Khess is concerned, the only evidence led by the prosecution is
that Amelda cautioned her that anyone can attack on her, apart from this evidence, there is nothing regarding involvement of Smt. Birjiniya Khess in
commission of offence, where the charge was not substantiated by any kind of evidence, the trial Court was right in holding that offence charged is
not established against any of the respondents and therefore, finding arrived at by the trial Court is not liable to be interfered by invoking jurisdiction of
appeal.
The appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.