Allowed

Sukur Sundi And Ors. v. State of Jharkahnd

Jharkhand HC19 Aug 2019Cr.A(DB)/147/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three appellants appealed their murder convictions. The High Court held that prosecution failed to prove motive, and medical evidence cast doubt on the time of death compared to the incident. Conviction under IPC 302/34 and 201 was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under sections 302/34 and 201 IPC set aside; appellants discharged of liability of bail bonds.

Sukur Sundi And Ors. Vs State of Jharkahnd — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶3

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 147 of 2001

¶4

(Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 27.02.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1995)

¶5

¶6

Sukur Sundi

¶7

Bagun Sundi

¶8

Sidiu Sundi

¶9

Singrai Sundi @ Pakori Sundi

¶10

All sons of late Goenda Sundi R/o village Narsanda, P.S. Chaibasa Muffasil District Singhbum (West) …… Appellants Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand …... ……… Respondent

¶12

¶13

P R E S E N T

¶14

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶15

¶16

For the Appellants : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Amicus For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, APP

¶17

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Dated: 19^th August, 2019 Oral Order

¶20

Two persons were named as accused by the informant, namely, Vijay Singh Deogam, father of the deceased, in his fardbeyan which was recoded on 19.3.1995, at about 8 a.m., on the basis of which Muffasil P.S. Case No. 23 of 1995 was registered under section 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The appellants have faced the trial on the charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Darsan Deogam and causing disappearance of his dead body.

¶22

The learned sessions judge has found the appellants guilty under section 302/34 IPC as well as under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under section 302/34 IPC and R.I. for five years under section 201 IPC.

¶23

¶24

By an order dated 14.8.2001, the appellants have been granted bail by this Court.

¶25

The prosecution’s case as disclosed by the informant in his fardbeyan is that in the evening of 18.3.1995 his son, namely, Darsan Deogam had gone to Murgapara at village Nasand. In the mid-night his brother-in-law, namely, Bagun Sundi and servant of Singhrai Sundi, namely, Bikram Sirka came to his house and asked the informant to keep his son in check else he would be killed some day. On enquiry from Bagun Sundi , the informant was told that his son had challenged him and his brother in the field (khalihan) and threatened to kill them. Next morning dead body of his son was found lying near Muchisai school. The informant goes there and finds his son in the pool of blood. Thereafter, he goes to his in-laws’ place and inquired about Bagun Sundi and Sidiu Sundi but they were not found in their house. He comes to the police station and gives his fardbeyan on the basis of which a First Information Report has been lodged. The informant has been examined as PW-2 during the trial. He has narrated a similar story about the incident in the court what has been described by him in his fardbeyan. Mother of the deceased -P.W-3, brother of the deceased-PW-4, sisters-inlaws of the deceased-PW-5 and P.W.6 have been examined during the trial. They are hearsay witnesses.

¶26

Bikram Sirka- P.W.12 has been projected by the prosecution as eye witness, however, when he was examined in the court has turned hostile.

¶27

The prosecution’s case is that there was a quarrel between Darsan Deogam and the appellants due to which he was killed by them and his dead body has been thrown near Muchisai School. The witness-Bikram Sirka has denied in his cross-examination that he has seen the occurrence and that the incident as narrated by the informant has ever happened. Cross-examination of Bikram Sirka by the prosecution would reveal that he has denied every suggestion by the prosecution.

¶28

However, the learned trial judge, referring to the statement of Bikram Sirka recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., has held that evidence of a

¶29

¶30

hostile witness cannot take away the merit of the prosecution’s story and, accordingly, convicted the appellants for murder of Darsan Deogam and for causing disappearance of his dead body.

¶31

It is well settled that the statement of a witness recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. or under section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used by the prosecution for corroboration and by the defence to contradict a witness, when he is examined in the Court. Statement of a witness recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., of course, stands on a high pedestal, but then, it never attains sanctity of substantive evidence. Statement of a witness recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used by the prosecution only for corroboration. There must be something substantial on record which the prosecution seeks to corroborate by the statement of a witness recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C.

¶32

The circumstances, that Bagun Sundi has visited the informant in the mid-night and asked him to discipline his son and abscondance of the accused persons from their house next day, are not conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused persons. The prosecution has also failed to prove the motive behind murder of Darsan Deogam and, above all, the medical evidence creates substantial doubt on the prosecution’s story of death of Darsan Deogam in the intervening night of 18.3.1995-19.3.1995. Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh-PW-9, who has conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Darsan Deogam, has rendered an opinion that the death has been caused 2-3 days prior to the date of the post-mortem examination.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 302/34 IPC and under section 201 IPC against the appellants. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants on the aforesaid charges and the sentence inflicted upon them by the learned Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1995 are set-aside.

¶34

The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged of the liability of bail-bonds furnished by them.

¶35

¶36

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 147 of 2001 is allowed.

¶37

We appreciate the able assistance rendered by Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, the learned Amicus.

¶38

The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s).

¶39

Let lower court record be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith.

¶40

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶41

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶42

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 19^th August, 2019 Sharda/Nibha A.F.R

Sukur Sundi And Ors. v. State of Jharkahnd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukur Sundi And Ors. v. State of Jharkahnd

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

Tonkaram Yadav Tonkadhar Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Jamiruddin Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Baijnath Mahto And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Zafruddin Main Vs State of Jharkhand

Quddus Khan And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Guddu Ojha Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Tonkaram Yadav  Tonkadhar Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Jamiruddin Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Baijnath Mahto And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Zafruddin Main Vs State of Jharkhand

Quddus Khan And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Guddu Ojha Vs State of Jharkhand

Tonkaram Yadav Tonkadhar Gope Vs State of Jharkhand