The High Court dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of Zamadar Singh. The Court affirmed the trial court's view that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of attempt to murder and unlawful possession of arms beyond reasonable doubt.
The Stat appeal is dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondent is affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
--Acq. Appeal (D.B.) No.22 of 2004
The State of Jharkhand, through Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
…. .…. Appellant
Versus
Zamadar Singh, son of Sri Ram Chandra Singh, resident of Co-operative Colony, Dumri No.4, P.S. Jorapokhar, District-Dhanbad
…. ….. Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
-----For the State : Mr. Awnish Shankar, A.P.P. For the respondent : Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, Advocate
05 / 07th September, 2016 Per Shree Chandrashekhar, J.:
Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No.670 of 1994, acquitting the sole accused Zamadar Singh of the charges framed for committing offence u/s 324/307 IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms Act, is under challenge.
1- lacerated wound right thigh upper and anterior surface – size 2”x1” muscle deep charring of the margine.
2- lacerated wound 3”x2” muscle deep middle and anterior surface, charring of the margine. Age of the injury within six hrs. Such kind of injuries may be caused by fire arm weapons. The injury report was marked Ext.-2.
3. The brother of the informant has not identified the accused and P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were declared hostile. The prosecution witnesses have admitted that the victim was convicted in a murder case and he was undergoing sentence. In the said case Zamadar Singh was a witness against the informant. Besides that, several other cases of theft and dacoity were also registered against him. The trial court has taken note of contradiction in the evidence of P.W.-7 and the informant inasmuch as, P.W.-7 has deposed that due to darkness he could not identify the accused whereas, the informant has stated that he identified the assailant in the glowing electric light at the place of occurrence. Two contradictory story of motive stated by the informant in the fardbeyan and before the court also goes to show that the true occurrence was not disclosed by the informant.
(Virender Singh, C.J.)
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Sudhir/SI
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow the acquittal of the accused charged under sections 324/307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act.
Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt given discrepancies in evidence and hostile witnesses.
The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
Zamadar Singh
Virender Singh
Shree Chandrashekhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
