Allowed

Steel Sardar alias Mangla v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Aug 2019Cr.A(DB)/252/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court acquitted five appellants of murder charges. The court held that the appellant-former informant's testimony was cryptic and lacked necessary details regarding the assault or identification of specific accused. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC was unsustainable and set aside.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set-aside; appellants acquitted of charges and set free.

Steel Sardar alias Mangla Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶4

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.251 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 215 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 219 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 252 of 2008

¶5

(Against the judgment of conviction under section 302/34 I.P.C dated 07.02.2008 and the order of sentence dated 12.02.2008 of R.I for life and fine of Rs.1000/- imposed upon each of the appellants passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge at Seraikella in Sessions Trial Case No.87 of 2006)

¶6

¶7

Titu Sardar son of late Bengal Sardar, resident of Gamharia Basic School, Nichetola, P.S-Adityapur, Distt.-Seraikella Kharswan

¶8

Sanu Sardar @ Sonu Sardar son of late Pandu Sardar, resident of Gutioli, P.O-Bansa, P.S-Chandil (Chouka) Distt.-Seraikella Kharswan

¶9

..... Appellants

¶10

(in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.251 of 2008)

¶11

Ram Lakhan Yadav @ Lakhan Yadav, son of late Gopi Yadav resident of Bhosipura, P.S-Badalpur, District-Jaunpur (U.P) at present resides at Gamaria Basic School (Niche Tola) P.S-Adityapur, Distt.Seraikella-Kharswan ..... Appellant

¶12

(in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.215 of 2008)

¶13

Sidu Sardar son of Late Tura Sardar @ Tusa Sardar, resident of village-Gamharia, P.S-Adityapur, District-Saraikela (Kharsawan), Jharkhand

¶14

..... Appellant

¶15

(in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.219 of 2013)

¶16

Steel Sardar @ Mangla son of late Bengol Sardar, resident of Gamharia Basic School Nichetola, P.S-Adityapur, Distt.-Seraikella-Kharswan, Jharkhand ..... Appellant

¶17

(in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.252 of 2008)

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State of Jharkhand …... Respondent (in all cases)

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶24

For the Appellants : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate

¶25

(in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.251 of 2008)

¶26

Mr. Prem Mardi, Amicus

¶27

(in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.215 of 2008 & Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.219 of 2013) For the State : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, A.P.P

¶28

(in all cases)

¶29

------------------

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Dated:7th August, 2019 Oral Order

¶32

Six persons were named as assailants by Badal Singh, brother-in-law of Binod Singh, the deceased, in his fard-beyan which was recorded on 24.01.2006. After the investigation a charge-sheet was filed and the appellants, namely, Anadi Yogi Gosai @ Sadhu, Ramlakhan Yadav @ Lakhan Yadav, Steel Sardar @ Mangala, Titu Sardar, Sidu Sardar and Sanu Sardar were sent-up for trial to face the charge for committing murder of Binod Singh in furtherance of their common intention.

¶33

Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, the learned A.P.P states that according to the report received from the Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Adityapur dated 02.08.2019, the accused-appellant, namely, Anadi Yogi Gosai @ Sadhu, who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.215 of 2008 has passed away.

¶34

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.215 of 2008 qua the appellant, namely, Anadi Yogi Gosai @ Sadhu stands abated.

¶35

During the trial the prosecution has examined seven witnesses; the informant is P.W 1.

¶36

¶37

Dr. J. Sriniwas Rao who has conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body has found the following injuries on Binod Singh:

¶38

External Injuries

¶39

(1) Lacerated wound 5 x 4 c.m x bone deep over left side of the

¶40

head,

¶41

(2) Laceration 6 c.m x 3 ½ c.m x bone deep over left side of

¶42

forehead just above left eye,

¶43

(3) Laceration ½ x ½ c.m x bone deep over left side of the chin,

¶44

(4) Laceration ½ x ½ c.m x bone deep below chin,

¶45

(5) Laceration 1 x 1 c.m x soft tissues over lower lip,

¶46

(6) Laceration 1 x 1 c.m x soft tissue over upper lip,

¶47

(7) Contusion 14 c.m x 9 c.m over left side of the face,

¶48

(8) Abrasion 5 x 4 c.m over left side of the face below left ear,

¶49

(9) Abrasion 3 x 2 c.m over left top of shoulder.

¶50

Internal Injuries

¶51

(1) Communicated fracture of scalp left prietal bone over aneria

¶52

of 18 c.m x 8 c.m,

¶53

(2) Defused contusion of whole brain.

¶54

The doctor has found as many as nine injuries on Binod Singh. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries on Binod Singh were ante-mortem in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. In his opinion, the death has been caused due to head injury.

¶55

The prosecution witnesses, Laxmi Devi-P.W 4 and Ashutosh Mukhi-P.W 5 are hear-say witness. P.W 4 is the wife of the deceased who has deposed in the court that she received information from her brother, namely, Suraj Singh who has been examined as P.W 2, and P.W 5 has denied that his statement was recorded by the police.

¶56

According to the prosecution, Binod Singh was assaulted with lathi and stone. In his fard-beyan the informant has stated that in the evening of 23.01.2006 at about 9 p.m, his neighbour Mangla Sardar @ Steel Sardar, Titu Sardar, Ram Lakhan Yadav, Sonu Sardar, Sidu Sardar and Anadi Jogi Gosai @ Sadhu, all armed with lathi, came to his house and enquired about Binod

¶57

¶58

Singh. Mother of the informant informed them that Binod Singh has not come back home and on her enquiry, Steel Sardar abusively said that they would kill Binod Singh. The informant has claimed that the accused persons went towards Harijan Basti and he also followed them. In the mean-time, he saw his brother-in-law, namely, Binod Singh coming from Harijan Basti. The accused persons caught him and started assaulting him with lathi. Thereafter, the informant came back home and informed his mother about assault upon Binod Singh by the accused persons. However, due to fear his mother advised him not to leave house in the night. In the morning he heard about death of one person and when he went there he found the dead body of Binod Singh behind the house of Sudhanshu Mukhi, near the house of Supal Kumhar.

¶59

In the court, the informant has deposed that in the night of 23.01.2006 Binod Singh has been killed. He has deposed that before murder of Binod Singh, Steel Sardar @ Mangla, Ram Lakhan Yadav, Titu Sardar, Sonu Sardar, Sidu Sardar and Anadi Jogi Gosai @ Sadhu had come to his house. They were carrying lathi . He has deposed that it was about 8.00 p.m in the evening and the accused persons were holding a torch. When they asked about Binod Singh, his mother told them that he is not at home. In the court also, the informant has stated about the altercation of Binod Singh with Sonu Sardar, brother-in-law of Steel Sardar @ Mangla. He has reiterated that he had followed the accused persons who were going towards Harijan Basti. In paragraph no.3 of his examination-in-chief, the informant says that he has seen the occurrence. He was behind the bushes when the accused persons were assaulting Binod Singh and thereafter he came back home and informed his mother and younger brother. In the morning when he heard about a dead body he along with his mother and brother had gone there and found that it was the dead body of Binod Singh.

¶60

Brother of the informant, namely, Suraj Singh when he was examined in the court has deposed that the appellants armed

¶61

¶62

with lathi came to his house. At that time his brother Badal Singh and his mother were present in the house. He has corroborated the informant on the point of the information given to him about assault by the accused persons to Binod Singh. The mother of the informant has also named the appellants as those who had come to her house on 23.01.2006 and enquired about Binod Singh. In her examination-in-chief, she says that when she was informed by Badal Singh about the assault upon Binod Singh, she advised him not to leave house in the night in search of Binod Singh. Both these witnesses have spoken of blood-stained danda and stone found near the dead body.

¶63

The informant has claimed himself as an eye-witness, however, on his own saying he has not seen who amongst the appellants has assaulted Binod Singh. He has made a general allegation of assault upon Binod Singh by all the accused persons. His examination-in-chief is almost cryptic, bereft of all necessary details. He has not described the details of the occurrence. His conduct in not informing the police on the pretext of his mother asking him not to leave home in the night seems highly unnatural. His claim that he has followed the accused persons when they were leaving his house in search of Binod Singh is, therefore, doubtful. None from the neighbourhood has been examined by the prosecution. Sudhanshu Mukhi and Supal Kumhar near whose house the dead body was found lying have not been examined. The informant has not stated that the incident has taken place near their house and, therefore, how the dead body was recovered from the place of occurrence has not been disclosed by the prosecution. On the point of identification also the prosecution is completely silent. The informant has not disclosed the source of illumination at the place of occurrence.

¶64

In the above facts, we find that on the basis of testimony of the informant which is bereft of necessary details, conviction of the appellants under section 302/34 I.P.C is not sustainable.

¶65

¶66

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under section 302/34 I.P.C dated 07.02.2008 and the order of sentence dated 12.02.2008 of R.I for life and fine of Rs.1000/- imposed upon each of the appellants passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge at Seraikella in Sessions Trial Case No.87 of 2006 are set-aside.

¶67

The appellants, namely, Titu Sardar and Sanu Sardar @ Sonu Sardar [in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.251 of 2008], Ram Lakhan Yadav @ Lakhan Yadav [in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.215 of 2008], Sidu Sardar [in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.219 of 2013] and Steel Sardar @ Mangla [in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.252 of 2008] are acquitted of the charges framed against them in Sessions Trial Case No.87 of 2006.

¶68

The appellants, namely, Ram Lakhan Yadav @ Lakhan Yadav [in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.215 of 2008], Sidu Sardar [in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.219 of 2013] and Steel Sardar @ Mangla [in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.252 of 2008], who are on bail, are discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by them.

¶69

The appellants, namely, Titu Sardar and Sanu Sardar @ Sonu Sardar [in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.251 of 2008], who are presently serving sentence, shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other criminal case.

¶70

Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.251 of 2008, Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.215 of 2008, Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.219 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.252 of 2008 are allowed.

¶71

We appreciate the efforts of Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned Amicus who has prepared a list of dates.

¶72

The assistance rendered by Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, the learned A.P.P is also appreciated.

¶73

The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bills(s) as per the Notification dated 23.11.2017.

¶74

Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through 'Fax'.

¶75

¶76

Let lower-court records be sent to the court concerned

¶77

forthwith.

¶78

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶79

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶80

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:07/08/2019 Sudhir N.A.F.R

Steel Sardar alias Mangla v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Steel Sardar alias Mangla 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Briksh Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Ravi Ganjhu And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Bishwanath Baraik And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Titu Sardar And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Pagru Das Vs State of Jharkhand

Bhaba Das Vs State of Jharkhand