Allowed

Rore Majhi v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Mar 2019Cr.A(DB)/111/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three accused appealed against their conviction for murder and conspiracy based on a murder of the informant's son. The High Court found the conviction unsustainable due to lack of eyewitness testimony and reliance solely on suspicion, granting acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgments of conviction and sentence were set aside. All appellants were acquitted of the charges and discharged from bail liabilities.

Rore Majhi Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 56 of 2001 And analogous appeals

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 56 of 2001

¶4

With

¶5

Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 66 of 2001

¶6

With

¶7

Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 111 of 2001

¶8

(Against the Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence dated 27^th January 2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella, in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1999.)

¶9

-------- Dharni Singh … … Appellant (Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 56 of 2001) Maya Ram Manjhi @ Maya Manjhi …. …. Appellant (Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 66 of 2001) Rore Manjhi … … Appellant (Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 111 of 2001)

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand

¶12

Indra Manjhi … … Respondents

¶13

--------

¶14

P R E S E N T

¶15

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -------- For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pratiush Lal, Advocate Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate Miss. Bhanu Priya, Advocate Mr. Ashok Nath Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

¶16

--------

¶17

By Court: - As all these three appeals arise out of the same impugned Judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

¶18

Heard learned senior counsels / counsel for the appellants in all these appeals and the learned counsel for the State.

¶19

The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence dated 27^th January 2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella, in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1999, whereby, all these appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and the accused, Ghuchu Manjhi (since dead) and Rore Manjhi have also been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of

¶20

Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 56 of 2001 And analogous appeals

¶21

¶22

the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, Ghuchu Manjhi (since dead) and Rore Manjhi have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and all the appellants have also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and both the sentences of Ghuchu Manjhi (since dead) and Rore Manjhi were directed to run concurrently.

¶23

It may be stated that during the pendency of these appeals, the appellant Ghuchu Manjhi died and accordingly, by order dated 21.02.2019, his name was deleted from the array of the appellants in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 111 of 2001. 5. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Indra Manjhi, who is the father of the deceased Bhim Chandra Manjhi, recorded on 6.8.1999, at about 2:00 P.M., at Village Heven, P.S Nimdih, District West Singhbhum, wherein he has stated that on the previous day, in the night at about 11:00 to 12:00 P.M., the accused Ghuchu Manjhi and Rore Manjhi came to his house and asked his son Bhim Chandra Manjhi to accompany them to Kasipur, where there was a fair on the occasion of Sarhul festival, whereupon his son went with them. When his son did not return till morning, they started searching him. At about 8:00 A.M, his wife was informed that one body was lying in an agriculture field, whereupon his wife went there and saw the dead body of his son with injuries, caused by sword. The informant was informed about the occurrence by his wife, whereupon he reached there, after informing the Chowkidar . It is further stated in the fardbeyan that a contract for construction of a bridge was taken by one Sanathan Pramanik, in which, he was working as Munshi . The accused, Maya Ram Manjhi and Dharni Singh were opposing the construction work, due to which, they had also threatened the informant earlier. He has also stated that the two boys, who had taken his son along with them, were related to Maya Ram Manjhi, one being his brother and the other being his brother-in-law. Suspecting that the accused persons had committed the murder of his son, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which, Nimdih P.S. Case No. 4 of 1999, corresponding to G.R No. 112 of 1999, was instituted for the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B of

¶24

Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 56 of 2001 And analogous appeals

¶25

¶26

the Indian Penal Code, against the named accused persons and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.

¶27

After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 302 / 34 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. 7. In course of trial, 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The I.O. has not been examined in the case. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-1 Dhelu Manjhi, P.W.-2 Gurupad Manjhi and P.W.-3 Sanatan Pramanik have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case, whereas P.W.-9 Umesh Mardi was only tendered by the prosecution.

¶28

P.W.-4 Gangadhar Manjhi and P.W.-6 Radha Manjhi are the witnesses to the inquest report and they have identified their signatures on the inquest report of the dead body, which were marked Exhibits-1 & 1/2 respectively. P.W.-4 Gangadhar Manjhi has not stated anything about the occurrence, whereas P.W.-6 Radha Manjhi has only stated that there were differences between Maya Ram Manjhi, Dharni Singh and the informant for the construction of a bridge. Similarly P.W.-7 Sohan Manjhi has also stated about the difference between the informant and Maya Ram Manjhi for the said purpose. None of them are witness to the occurrence, and P.W.-7 Sohan Manjhi has admitted in his cross-examination that he had no knowledge about the occurrence.

¶29

P.W.-5 Indra Manjhi is the informant in the case and P.W.-10 Sushila Manjhian is the wife of the informant and the mother of the deceased. Naturally, none of them are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. They have only stated that the appellants Rore Manjhi and Ghuchu Manjhi had called their son from his house in the night and on the next day, his dead body was found. They have only raised suspicion against the accused appellants. P.W.-5 Indra Manjhi has identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Exhibit-1/1, and both of them have identified the accused persons in the Court. In his

¶30

Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 56 of 2001 And analogous appeals

¶31

¶32

cross-examination, P.W.-5 Indra Manjhi has admitted that Rore Manjhi and Ghuchu Manjhi were the friends of his son, and they were studying together in the school. He has also admitted that there is no enmity between them.

¶33

P.W.-8 Dr. Yogendra Nath had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 7.3.1989, and he has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-2. Suffice would be to say that this witness had found incised wounds on the dead body of the deceased, which were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature.

¶34

Learned senior counsels / counsel for the appellants have submitted that the impugned Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as except suspicion, and the evidence of last seen against the accused Rore Manjhi, there is no material against any accused. 12. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that there is strong suspicion against the accused persons.

¶35

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides, and upon going through the evidence on record, it is apparent that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the only material against the appellants is suspicion raised by P.W.-5 Indra Manjhi and P.W.-10 Sushila Manjhian, the father and mother of the deceased. Though these witnesses have stated that Rore Manjhi and Ghuchu Manjhi had taken their son in the night, but it is apparent from the cross-examination of P.W.-5 Indra Manjhi, that all of them were friends and they had gone together on the occasion of Sarhul festival.

¶36

14 . In the facts and circumstances of the case and upon going through the entire materials on record, we find that there is nothing against the appellants, except the suspicion, and it is well settled principle of law that the suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take place of the proof.

¶37

15 . We are of the considered view that in the facts of this case, the appellants deserved at least the benefits of doubt and the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶38

Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 56 of 2001 And analogous appeals

¶39

¶40

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence dated 27^th January 2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella, in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1999, convicting and sentencing the appellants, Dharni Singh, Maya Ram Manjhi @ Maya Manjhi and Rore Manjhi for the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and the appellant Rore Manjhi also for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby set aside. Consequently, all these appellants Dharni Singh, Maya Ram Manjhi @ Maya Manjhi and Rore Manjhi are given the benefits of doubt and they are acquitted of the charges. All these appellants are on bail and they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.

¶41

17 . All these three appeals are accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.

¶42

(H.C. Mishra, J.)

¶43

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶44

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated the 07^th March, 2019. N.A.F.R- BS /-

Rore Majhi v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rore Majhi v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudha Pathak Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

State Of Jharkhand Vs Priyabhanshu Ranjan

Dhaneshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anshu Kumari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Maya Ram Manjhi Alias Maya Majhi Vs State of Jharkhand

Dharni Singh Vs State of Jharkhand