Dismissed

Damodar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Feb 2018Cr.M.P./2549/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of five accused persons in a criminal trial. The court found the prosecution failed to substantiate allegations of assault due to lack of medical evidence and the fact that the informant was convicted for murdering one of the accused in the same transaction.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal was refused and the criminal revision petition was dismissed.

Damodar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No.2549 of 2017

¶3

¶4

Damodar Singh …....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Deepak Kumar Singh

¶8

Sunny Singh

¶9

Kulwant Singh

¶10

Balwant Singh

¶11

Anil Singh ……..Opposite Parties

¶12

----------For the Petitioner : M/s. Rashmi Kumar,Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav,Adv.

¶13

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶14

---------- 04/07.02.2018: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite parties.

¶15

2. Petitioner is the informant who seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22^nd July, 2017 passed by learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-V, Chatra in Sessions Trial Case No. 91 of 2009, whereunder the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 147,148,324,325,307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

3. Informant through his FIR, lodged on 7^th July, 2003 alleged that at about 9:15 a.m., while he was at Amardeep Hotel, the labourers of Telephone Department were digging trench by the side of the road for laying down cables, the informant asked them to cut through the side of the road so that access of trucks at his hotel may not be disturbed. Awadh Kishore Singh of his village protested and as a result some altercation took place. Awadh Kishore Singh went back threatening him of dire consequences and later on came with 9 FIR named accused persons which included Pramod Singh and these accused persons. They were armed with sharp cutting deadly weapons and on the order of Awadh Kishore Singh, Pramod Singh gave farsa blow on his right

¶17

-2-

¶18

hand causing cut injury and bleeding. Awadh Kishore Singh gave a Bhujali blow on his neck causing cut injury and bleeding. He tried to flee away but failed. On his cries, Sunil Kumar Singh, Rajesh Kumar Singh and Awadesh Singh assembled there and tried to save him but Arjun Singh by swords, Anil Singh, Sunny Singh and Deepak Kumar Singh by Bhujali caused hurt to him, as a result he became unconscious and regained conscious in Sadar Hospital, Chatra. He was referred to Appolo Hospital, Irba, Ranchi for better treatment where he was admitted and treated. His fard-beyan was recorded by A.S.I., Jatashankar Singh of Ormanjhi P.S. at about 12:30 p.m. on 08.07.2003, at bed No. 07 ICU Appolo Hospital which has led to institution of the instant FIR. According to him, Rs. 1,000/- was also taken away from the counter of his hotel by the accused persons. Since his right hand was injured, he put his left thumb impression on the fard-beyan.

¶19

4. The Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet No. 187 of 2007 against these accused persons and submitted final form against Awadh Kishore Singh and Pramod Singh(deceased) as innocent and due to lack of evidence against Ashdeo Singh and Arjun Singh. Cognizance was taken, police papers were supplied and case was committed to the court of Sessions against these accused persons. Charges were framed under the aforesaid sections. The accused persons pleaded not guilty, where after the trial commenced. Prosecution examined twelve witnesses but no documentary evidences were produced from their side. The statement of the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was thereafter recorded. They pleaded innocence and denied the charges.

¶20

5. Prosecution witness no.1 in his statement stated that he was not at home on the date of occurrence and only heard that Pramod Singh had died and Damodar Singh is admitted in hospital but does not know how the occurrence took place.

¶21

-3-

¶22

He was declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶23

6. Prosecution Witness Nos. 2,3,4,5,8,11 and 12 also did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. 7. P.W.6 informant Damodar Singh supported the prosecution story and alleged that all these accused persons came to the alleged place of occurrence. Awadh Kishore Singh and Arjun Singh were armed with sword and others were armed with farsa and bhujali. Awadh Kishore Singh gave sword blow on his neck resulting in cut injury and Pramod Singh gave farsa blow on his right hand causing cut injury. The villagers assembled there but in the meantime Arjun Singh gave sword blow, Anil Singh, Sunny Singh and Deepak Singh gave Bhujali blow on his body and he became unconscious. He was thereafter taken to Sadar Hospital, Chatra and referred to Apollo Hospital where he gave fardbeyan. Fard beyan is testified as Ext.1. During his crossexamination he denied any dispute with the accused persons from before. He also admitted that after one day of the alleged occurrence Pramod Singh died. He also admitted that in the murder case of Pramod Singh being S.T. No. 60 of 2004, several persons were injured. According to him he had received injuries on two places of his body. 8. P.W.-7 stated that at about 9:15 p.m. on 7.7.2003 while he was at his betel shop near Amardeep Hotel, some altercation took place and after some time Awadh Kishore Singh, Pramod Singh came there armed with deadly weapon and surrounded the informant. Awadh kishore Singh gave sword blow on his neck while Pramod Singh gave farsa blow on his right hand causing cut injury. In his cross-examination he had admitted that Virendra Singh is his brother and Damodar Singh is his uncle. In the case of murder of Pramod Singh, his brother is in jail. He also stated that Damodar Singh had committed the murder of Pramod Singh. 9. P.W. 9 supported the case of prosecution that altercation had taken place between two sides and Awadh

¶24

-4-

¶25

Kishore Singh along with 8-10 persons came and gave sword blow on his neck and Pramod Singh gave farsa blow on his right hand. He also admitted in his cross examination that Pramod Singh was murdered in the said occurrence and informant is suffering life imprisonment for that. P.W. 10, father of Pramod Singh naturally turned hostile during trial and alleged that Damodar Singh informant had committed murder of his son.

¶26

10. The learned trial court considered the material evidence on record and came to a finding that Damodar Singh informant is a convict of life imprisonment for the murder of Pramod Singh in the same transaction of the occurrence. P.W. 7 has inimical terms as his brother Virendra Singh is also an accused in the case of murder of Pramod Singh. P.W. 6 informant has alleged injury by all these accused persons but without any proof. No injury report has been brought on record by the prosecution. In spite of sufficient time to produce evidence neither the I.O. of the case was examined nor the doctor was examined to testify the injury. Awadh Kishore Singh had not been sent up for trial as police submitted final form against him. Similarly, Arjun Singh and Asdeo Singh were also not charge sheeted. The informant had alleged two injuries one on neck and another on the right hand but had also stated that other accused persons gave several repeated farsa blow on his body causing injury . P.W. 1, 7 and 9 had not supported the version of the informant that these accused persons caused injury by the sharp cutting weapon on the body of the informant. Therefore, evidence of the informant became doubtful against these accused persons. In the wake of material evidence as discussed by the learned trial court, it came to a finding that prosecution had failed to prove the charges against any of the five persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. Resultantly, they were acquitted of the charges.

¶27

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

¶28

-5-

¶29

analysis of the material evidence on record by the learned trial court is faulty. The informant, clearly alleged two injuries by Awadh Kishore Singh and Pramod Singh and also assault by sharp cutting weapon on the part of the other accused persons. The learned trial court suddenly closed the evidence on 07.07.2017 without granting adequate time to the prosecution to adduce the evidence of the doctor or the Investigating Officer. The evidence of P.W. 7 also goes to show that these accused persons had come armed with deadly weapon and surrounded the informant and inflicted sword blows and farsa blows on him by Awadh Kishore Singh and Pramod Singh. Therefore leave to appeal deserves to be granted to the petitioner to assail the findings of the learned trial court in appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the private opposite parties has opposed the prayer and defended the impugned judgment. He submitted that out of 12 witnesses, all independent witnesses have turned hostile. P.W. 6 informant has not been able to fully corroborate the prosecution story as no medical evidence was adduced to support the injuries said to have been sustained through Awadh Kishore Singh or Pramod Singh. In fact, Awadh Kishore Singh was not sent up for trial and his arraignment as well as that of Ashudeo Singh and Arjun Singh as accused under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. by the trial court was set aside by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 210 of 2012. However, Pramod Singh was in fact murdered in the same transaction and the informant Damodar Singh has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the said offence. In the wake of such serious doubts and lack of corroboration by independent witnesses or the Medical Officer and Investigating Officer, the trial court had no other option than to acquit the accused persons of the charges. The impugned judgment, therefore, does not deserve any interference.

¶30

13. We have considered the submission of learned counsel

¶31

-6-

¶32

for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment and relevant material evidence relied upon by the counsel for the parties. Upon consideration of these materials, we find that the prosecution had not been able to substantiate the allegations of assault by sharp cutting weapon on the body of the informant by producing any evidence in that regard. The medical officer/ doctor who could have testified the injury was not examined. One of the authors of the assault Awadh Kishore Singh was not even charge sheeted by the police and his arraignment as an accused along with two other persons Ashudeo Singh @ Asdeo Singh and Arjun Singh by the learned trial court under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was also set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Cr. Revision No. 210 of 2012, judgment dated 26.03.2012. Even as per the informant, though all other accused persons had repeatedly inflicted injuries through sharp cutting weapon upon him but he deposed only about two injuries which also remained uncorroborated.The informant himself was suffering imprisonment for life for murder of Pramod Singh, named accused of his FIR, in a case arising out of same transaction. 14. Thus, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for grant of leave to appeal to assail the findings of learned trial court.

¶33

15. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed.

¶34

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶35

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶36

Sharda/Nibha

Damodar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damodar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhirendra Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief Secretary And Ors.

Narendra Nath Paira Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs Smt Indu Devi

Sudhir Kumar Manki Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Somnath Biswas Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jagdanand Mahto And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Principal Secretary Department Of Home And Ors.