Allowed

Dilip Mandal And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Oct 2019Cr.A(SJ)/295/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence for attempted murder. The court held that prosecution evidence was unreliable due to hostile witnesses and inconsistencies regarding the injury location and the incident details, making conviction unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed, judgment of conviction and sentence set aside, appellants discharged from liability of bail bonds.

Dilip Mandal And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 295 of 2006

¶2

Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2006 passed by Sri Udai Narayan Singh, Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 138 of 2004.

¶3

¶4

Dilip Mandal 2. Jhamu Mandal … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶5

For the Appellants : M/s. J. Mazumdar and Madhulika Dasgupta, Advs. For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.

¶6

--- PRESENT

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶8

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the

¶10

State.

¶11

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2006 passed by Sri Udai Narayan Singh, Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 138 of 2004 whereby and whereunder these appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for four years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default thereof, R.I. for two years.

¶12

3. The prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR is that on 12.11.2003 at about 8.30 P.M. while Niranjan Bhandari (victim/informant) was operating generator for the construction of road, the present appellants namely Dilip Mandal and Jhamu Mandal has reached near the informant. Dilip Mandal caught hold his mouth and pushed him on the ground and when the informant fell down on the ground, the accused Jhamu Mandal caught hold his both legs and Dilip Mandal has given dagger blow on his chest with the intention to kill him. On raising hulla, both the accused persons have fled away. Both the accused persons are own brothers. The motive to kill the informant is that he was one of the witness in the case in which Dilip Mandal was an accused and as such, attempt to murder has been made by these accused persons.

¶13

4 . On the basis of statement of the informant, Littipara P. S. Case No. 45 of 2003 was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶14

5 . On conclusion of the prosecution case, statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. was recorded, in which they pleaded not guilty.

¶15

6. During trial, altogether nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 6 and 7 have been declared hostile. P. W. 3, Nemai Bhandari, brother of the victim/informant, who reached the spot on raising hulla by the informant and has taken the victim to the hospital with other co-villagers, who were P. Ws, 4, 5 and 6. All of them have been declared hostile and none of them have supported the prosecution case. P. W. 1 is doctor, who has proved the injury. He has found injury on the body of the victim/informant i.e. incised wound ½” x ½” x skin deep over middle of the right parietal region (not on chest) and mark of tenderness over whole of the front of chest. P. W.-8 is the informant, who has supported the incident. P. W. 9 is the first I.O., who has proved the FIR.

¶16

7. From perusal of the material on record, it is evident that in the prosecution story, it has been alleged that these appellants have given dagger blow on the chest of the victim/informant, but the incident of taking him to hospital by his brother and co-villagers have been negated by the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the incidence itself i.e place of occurrence as well as manner in which incident has happened, is doubtful. In such circumstances, conviction of the present appellants is not sustainable. Accordingly judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2006 passed by Sri Udai Narayan Singh, Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 138 of 2004 is, hereby, set aside. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.

¶17

08. Since the appellants are already on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

¶18

(Rajesh Kumar, J)

¶19

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 11^th day of October, 2019 kamlesh/NAFR/

Dilip Mandal And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Mandal And Anr. 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

Badri Kewat Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand

Tapeshwar Ray Alias Tomesher Ray Vs State of Jharkhand

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

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

Narayan Giri Vs State of Jharkhand

Janeshwar Mistry Vs State of Jharkhand

Dhirendra Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Badri Kewat  Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand

Tapeshwar Ray Alias Tomesher Ray Vs State of Jharkhand

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

Badri Kewat Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand