Allowed

Badri Kewat Rawani v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Oct 2019Cr.A(SJ)/289/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against conviction under Sections 307 and 341 IPC. The High Court set aside the conviction due to lack of involvement of the appellant in the FIR version and the fatal non-examination of the investigation officer, who disclosed involvement of multiple persons.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Sections 307 and 341 IPC set aside; appellant discharged from liability of bail bond.

Badri Kewat Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 289 of 2006

¶2

¶3

Against the judgment of conviction dated 05.01.2006 and order of sentence dated 05.01.2006 passed by 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.16 of 2002/33 of 2003.

¶4

¶5

Badri Kewat @ Rawani … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ---

¶6

For the Appellant : Mr. Vikash Anand, Adv. For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶9

¶10

Heard Mr. Vikash Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶11

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 05.01.2006 and order of sentence dated 05.01.2006 passed by 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.16 of 2002/33 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence U/s 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and further has been held guilty U/s 341 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences to be run concurrently.

¶12

The Criminal Law has been put into motion by lodging the FIR dated 13.06.1999 wherein the informant Mahadeo Soren has alleged that while he was going to his Sasural at around 8 P.M. from his workplace, suddenly he had been restrained by three boys. One of them had took away his cycle and went towards the market. Other two boys had thrown him on the ground and assaulted him with fists and slaps. In the meantime, another boy has approached and assaulted him with knife with intention to kill him. On raising hulla all the boys had run away.

¶13

¶14

Thereafter the informant went to his Sasural where he has narrated the incident. He had been admitted to hospital by the family members and there the police had been called upon and on his fardbayan FIR has been lodged.

¶15

Police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet on 31.08.1999 against the appellant only. Cognizance has been taken and charge has been framed which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Altogether nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 to P.W.6 have been declared hostile who were independent witnesses.

¶16

P.W.8 Mahadeo Soren (Informant) has supported the incident. P.W.9 Chandera Devi Murmu (wife of the informant) has supported the injury. P.W.7 is the doctor who has proved the injury report.

¶17

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that although in FIR this appellant has been named but no specific role has been assigned. It has been alleged while deposing that the assault with knife has been made by the appellant. The version of the incident and the involvement of the three persons has been negated by the I.O. The charge-sheet has been submitted against this appellant only. The alleged robbed item wrist watch and bicycle have not been recovered. The appellant has been charged under Section 394 of the I.P.C. on the basis of statement of the informant.

¶18

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. has opposed and submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges under Sections 307, 326, 341 and 394 of the I.P.C. Informant has identified the present appellant. The injury is supported by the medical evidence as well as oral evidence of P.W.9.

¶19

The prosecution story discloses the involvement of four persons in the incident. After investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet against the appellant alone. Thus, the version of the informant has not been found true by the I.O. The

¶20

¶21

I.O. has not been examined and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, non-examination of I.O. is fatal because the I.O. has given new version to the incident disclosing the involvement of a single person. The informant although has named the present appellant in the FIR but it has not been alleged that this appellant has assaulted the informant with knife. Subsequently, informant has improved the story vis-a-vis the present appellant.

¶22

Thus, there is a serious discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.8 who is the only witness in the present case. On the evidence of such witness, the conviction of the appellant cannot be substantiated.

¶23

In view of above discussion, the appellant is discharged from the charge under Sections 307 and 341 of the I.P.C. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence dated 05.01.2006 passed by 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.16 of 2002/33 of 2003 is, hereby set aside. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.

¶24

Since appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond.

¶25

(Rajesh Kumar, J)

¶26

Amar/NAFR/

¶27

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 11^th of October, 2019

Badri Kewat Rawani v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Kewat Rawani 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

Narayan Giri Vs State of Jharkhand

Janeshwar Mistry Vs State of Jharkhand

Dhirendra Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tapeshwar Ray Alias Tomesher Ray Vs State of Jharkhand

Nakal Mahamarik And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dilip Mandal And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand