Allowed

Manik Singh And Anr. v. Staate of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Mar 2019Cr.A(DB)/512/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal appeals against murder conviction, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment. Finding the Investigating Officer and post-mortem doctor were not examined, the court held this vitally prejudiced the defense and granted benefits of doubt, acquitting the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted, benefits of doubt granted. Appellant in custody directed to be released.

Manik Singh And Anr. Vs Staate of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 512 of 2008

¶2

With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 545 of 2008

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 512 of 2008 With

¶5

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 545 of 2008

¶6

(Against the Judgement of conviction dated 24.04.2008 and Order of sentence dated 25.04.2008, passed by the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa, in S.T. No. 107A of 1992.)

¶7

¶8

Manik Singh 2. Amlesh Singh … … Appellants (In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 512 of 2008) Gokhul Singh @ Gokhula Singh … … Appellant (In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 545 of 2008)

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent (In Both the Appeals)

¶11

¶12

P R E S E N T

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶14

¶15

For the Appellants : M/s. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Bandana Kumari Sinha, Advocate For the State : M/s. Laxmi Murmu, A.P.P.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State in both these appeals.

¶19

The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgement of conviction dated 24.04.2008 and Order of sentence dated 25.04.2008, passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa, in S.T. No.107A of 1992, whereby the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- each, for the said offence.

¶20

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 512 of 2008 With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 545 of 2008

¶21

¶22

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Mandip Ram, the nephew of the deceased Kedar Ram, recorded on 17.06.1989 at about 9:30 A.M., at village Husro, P.S. Bhawnathpur, in the then District of Palamau, (presently Garhwa), wherein it is stated that on the same day at about 5:00 A.M., they were constructing a hut on their raiyati land, which was forcibly occupied by one Ram Sewak Singh. In the meantime 11 (eleven) persons named by the informant, including these accused persons, came there variously armed, whereupon the informant and his uncle tried to flee away, but his uncle was surrounded in the hut itself and the accused persons assaulted his uncle by garasa and pistol, due to which he died at the spot. The informant has stated in the fardbeyan that he could not see as to which accused was armed with what weapon. He has stated that the accused persons had committed the offence, as they did not want to vacate the land forcibly occupied by them. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 35 of 1989, corresponding to G.R. No. 357 of 1989, was instituted for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, against 11 named accused persons, and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.

¶23

After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against all the 11 named accused persons, including these appellants, for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the charge was framed only against five accused persons, including these appellants, for the offence under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial.

¶24

It appears from the impugned Judgement that after examination of four prosecution witnesses, these appellants absconded and accordingly, their trial was separated. In the main trial one accused was convicted by the Trial Court, whereas all others were acquitted by the Trial Court. After apprehension of these accused persons, their trial proceeded again, but no other witness was examined by the prosecution in their trial. The Court below, however, by order dated 17.04.2008, has

¶25

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 512 of 2008 With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 545 of 2008

¶26

¶27

marked the fardbeyan , the formal F.I.R., the inquest report and the post-mortem report as exhibits in the case, without examination of any witness, competent to prove these documents.

¶28

In the present case, the fact remains that the I.O., and the Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, have not been examined by the prosecution, and out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-3 Mahesh Ram was only tendered by the prosecution.

¶29

P.W.-4 Mandip Ram is the informant in the case. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place about six years ago at about 5:00 A.M. He was going along with his uncle Kedar Ram, and he was slightly behind him. He heard the sound of firing which was made by Manik Singh. Thereafter he concealed himself behind a mango tree. Manki Singh fired the gun but the bullet hit the tree. Thereafter the accused persons started assaulting his uncle. Panda Singh shot another fire, which missed, and thereafter Amlesh Singh fired the pistol putting the same on the back of his uncle, injuring him, and Gokhul Singh assaulted his uncle by garasa causing injuries to him. He has stated in his evidence that Manik Singh, Panda Singh and Amlesh Singh were armed with pistols, Gokhul Singh and Moti Singh were armed with garasa and others were armed with lathi . This witness has also stated that at the time of occurrence they were going towards their raiyati land to put a hut thereon, when the occurrence had taken place, in which his uncle died at the spot. Thereafter, he went to the police station and again came back along with the police, where his statement was recorded, on which he had put his signature. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked Exhibit-1. In his cross-examination his attention has been drawn towards every statement that he made in the Court, asking him whether such statements were given by him before the police, and this witness has claimed to have given such statements before the police. He has denied the suggestion that the deceased was a member of an extremist group and he was killed by the extremists and the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.

¶30

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 512 of 2008 With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 545 of 2008

¶31

¶32

P.W.-1 Bhoklu Ram and P.W.-2 Ramlagan Prasad Yadav have also deposed in the Court as eye witnesses to the occurrence, giving the vivid details of the occurrence. In their cross-examinations their attentions have also been drawn towards every statement that they made in the Court, asking them whether such statements were given by them before the police, and these witnesses have claimed that most of the statements were given by them before the police.

¶33

The fact however, remains that no other witness was examined in the case and since the I.O., has not been examined, the necessary contradictions could not be taken from the I.O. Even the Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination has not been examined in the case.

¶34

Learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, according to the FIR, at the time of occurrence, the informant and the deceased had already put the hut on the land in dispute, and the deceased was assaulted and killed in the hut by the accused persons, but according to the evidence of the informant P.W.-4 Mandip Ram, the occurrence had taken place when they were going towards the land to put the hut. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that as per the FIR, the informant could not see as to which accused was armed with what weapon, but he has given the vivid details about which accused was armed with what weapon and by what weapon, they had assaulted the deceased, in his evidence in the Court. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the same is the situation with other two witnesses also supporting the prosecution case, and they have also made improvements over their earlier versions given before the police, but due to non-examination of the I.O, the defence has been vitally prejudiced as necessary contradictions could not be taken from the I.O. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the Doctor, conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, has not been examined in the case, and the post-mortem report has been wrongly proved in the Court below, which could not be taken into consideration. Learned senior

¶35

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 512 of 2008 With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 545 of 2008

¶36

¶37

counsel, accordingly, submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence are fit to be set aside, and the appellants were entitled at least to the benefits of doubt.

¶38

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that P.W.-1 Bhoklu Ram, P.W.-2 Ramlagan Prasad Yadav and P.W.-4 Mandip Ram have fully supported the prosecution case as eyewitness to the occurrence, as such, in spite of the fact that the Doctor and the I.O could not be examined, the appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, as no prejudice has been caused to the defence due to non-examination of these witnesses.

¶39

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the evidence on record, we find that there are apparent discrepancies in the FIR and the evidence of the informant P.W.-4 Mandip Ram. It is rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that according to the FIR, the occurrence had taken place in the hut and it is alleged that the accused persons had surrounded the deceased in the hut where he was killed by the accused persons, and the informant could not see as to which accused was armed with what weapon, but in his evidence, the informant has stated that they were going towards the land in question for putting the hut, and he has also made improvements over his earlier statements made in the FIR, inasmuch as he has given the details as to which accused was armed with what weapon and who had assaulted the deceased by what weapon. Even P.W.-1 Bhoklu Ram and P.W.-2 Ramlagan Prasad Yadav have also given such statements. In the interest of justice, we have looked into the case diary with the help of the learned senior counsel, from which, it is apparent that Bhoklu Ram had also stated before the police that he could not see as to which accused was armed with what weapon and Ramlagan Prasad Yadav had stated before the police that he could not identify any accused, rather he was informed the names of the accused persons by the informant. It is thus, apparent that the non-examination of the I.O., has vitally prejudiced the defence in the case and even the place of occurrence has not been properly proved in the case. The enmity between the parties due to the land dispute between

¶40

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 512 of 2008 With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 545 of 2008

¶41

¶42

them, as also the possession of the accused persons over the disputed land, are the admitted facts. As such, the false implication of the accused persons cannot be ruled out.

¶43

In the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that in the absence of the evidence of the I.O., and the Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination, the accused appellants could not have been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, rather the appellants were entitled to be given at least the benefits of doubt. As such, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶44

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgement of conviction dated 24.04.2008 and Order of sentence dated 25.04.2008, passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa, in S.T. No.107A of 1992, convicting and sentencing the appellants, Manik Singh, Amlesh Singh and Gokhul Singh @ Gokhula Singh, for the offence under Section 302 the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, he appellants are given the benefits of doubt, and they are acquitted of the charge. The appellants, Manik Singh and Gokhul Singh @ Gokhula Singh are on bail, and they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. The appellant Amlesh Singh is in custody, undergoing the sentence. He is directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.

¶45

Both these appeals are accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgement.

¶46

(H.C. Mishra, J.)

¶47

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶48

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated the 11^th of March, 2019. D.S-BS./ N.A.F.R.

Manik Singh And Anr. v. Staate of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Singh And Anr. v. Staate 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

Dharni Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Rore Majhi Vs State of Jharkhand

Maya Ram Manjhi Alias Maya Majhi Vs State of Jharkhand

Gokhul Singh Alias Gokhula Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Roshan Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand through National Investigating Agency