Allowed

Ramu Marandi v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jan 2019Cr.A(SJ)/747/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction under Section 304 IPC for culpable homicide, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment. Finding key witnesses hostile, lack of eye-witnesses, and a fair investigation doubtful, the Court granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside; appellant acquitted under Section 304 IPC and discharged from bail liability.

Ramu Marandi Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 747 of 2004

¶4

....

¶5

(Against the judgment of conviction dated 13.02.2004 and order of sentence dated 16.02.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sahebganj, in Sessions Case No. 222 of 2001).

¶6

Ramu Marandi, son of Dibo Marandi, resident of Ichaki, P.S. Barhait, DistrictSahibganj.

¶7

… .. Appellant

¶8

Versus The State of Jharkhand … . Respondent

¶9

¶10

PRESENT

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶12

For the Appellant : Mr. Swami Nath Prasad Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K. Appu, Additional Public Prosecutor ------

¶13

By Court:- The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment

¶14

of conviction dated 13.02.2004 and order of sentence dated 16.02.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sahebganj, in Sessions Case No. 222 of 2001, whereby the sole appellant Ramu Marandi has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years and the period already undergone in jail by the accused during trial of the case shall be set off under Section 428 CrPC from his sentence.

¶15

2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Shiv Soren, son of Matla Soren recorded by Sub Inspector of Police Lallan Kumar of Barhait Police Station on 11.04.2001 at 14.00 P.M. where the informant has stated that his sister Fulmani Soren has been married with the appellant Ramu Marandi fifteen years ago. It is alleged that yesterday (Tuesday) at around 0.40 Hours, the informant received an information that his brother-in-law has assaulted his sister causing unconsciousness. The informant along with co-villagers went to the house of his sister and saw his sister in unconscious condition. She was treated by the doctor but after some time, sister of the informant died. When the informant asked his

¶16

¶17

brother-in-law about the reason, the accused Ramu Marandi did not whisper anything, thereafter, the maternal niece and others disclosed that his sister has been assaulted by the accused after his return from hunting, as she could not provide food and thus, with the help of wooden log kept for fire, the accused has assaulted the sister of informant on head due to which she became unconscious and subsequently died.

¶18

On the basis of the fardbeyan of informant, police has registered Barhait P.S. Case No. 23 of 2001 dated 11.04.2001, under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Ramu Marandi.

¶19

After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide no. 31 of 2001, dated 29.04.2001, under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Ramu Marandi. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 08.06.2001 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 16.08.2001.

¶20

The charge has been framed against accused Ramu Marandi under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 01.05.2002, to which the accused Ramu Marandi has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial.

¶21

The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether eight witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence. Dr. Ramashray Singh, Medical Officer, who has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased has been examined as P.W. 1, Shiv Soren, informant of the case has been examined as P.W. 2 but has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Siril Hembrom, a hearsay witness has been examined as P.W. 3, Chandan Marandi, hostile witness has been examined as P.W. 4, Mandal Hembrom, a hearsay witness has been examined as P.W. 5, Munshi Soren, hostile witness has been examined as P.W. 6, Manjhi Hembrom, an inquest witness, has been examined as P.W. 7 and Lallan Kumar, a

¶22

¶23

Police Officer, who has recorded the fardbeyan of the informant and investigated the case, has been examined as P.W. 8.

¶24

Post mortem report of the deceased Fulmani Soren has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1, inquest report bearing signature of Siril Hembrom (P.W. 3) has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2, fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 3, formal F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit4 and the case diary from page no. 1 to 30 has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 5 (wrongly exhibited).

¶25

After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 16.01.2004, to which he has pleaded that he is innocent but no defence witness or document has been adduced by the defence.

¶26

After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Trial Court has passed, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, holding the appellant guilty under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal, assailing the same.

¶28

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Swami Nath Prasad Roy, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law as the informant Shiv Soren (P.W. 2) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Chandan Marandi (P.W. 4) and Munshi Soren (P.W. 6) have also been declared hostile by the prosecution. Siril Hembrom (P.W. 3) is an inquest witness and Mandal Hembrom (P.W. 5) is a hearsay witness. Manjhi Hembrom (P.W. 7) is another inquest witness and Lallan Kumar (P.W. 8) is the Investigating Officer of the

¶29

¶30

case, who has recorded the fardbeyan of the informant but subsequently has investigated the case, as such, there is no fair investigation against the accused/appellant Ramu Marandi. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that no bleeding injury has been found on the head of the informant rather she has died because of “cerebral shock”. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though Dr. Ramashray Singh (P.W. 1) has found

¶31

“Swelling 2½” x 1” on parietal region of head in left side in transverse direction” caused by hard and blunt substance but while examining as P.W. 1, this witness has stated that if anyone falls from a long height on a hard substance, this type of injury can be possible. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the informant has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and none of the prosecution witnesses are eye witnesses to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that children of the deceased have not been examined in this case and Investigating Officer is the same Police Officer who has recorded the fardbeyan of informant but said fardbeyan has not been supported by the informant and other prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus, submitted that the appellant deserves to be acquitted from charge and conviction under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶32

Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. P.K. Appu, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded and is based on the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence of Dr. Ramashray Singh (P.W. 1) Medical Officer and Lallan Kumar (P.W. 8) investigating officer of the case. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that though the informant has not supported the case of prosecution

¶33

¶34

and has been declared hostile but on the basis of the medical evidence of Dr. Ramashray Singh (P.W. 1) who has proved the post-mortem report, which has been marked as Exhibit- 1 coupled with the evidence of Lallan Kumar, the appellant has rightly been convicted by the learned trial court, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant any interference by this Hon'ble Court.

¶35

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Swami Nath Prasad Roy, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. P.K. Appu, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on record including the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, five prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has minutely scrutinised the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. From perusal of the evidence of Shiv Soren (P.W. 2), informant, it appears that he has not supported his fardbeyan nor any of the prosecution witnesses have claimed themselves to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. The evidence of P.W. 1, Dr. Ramashray Singh, suggests that such injury may be caused to the deceased on fall from height and Manjhi Hembrom (P.W. 7), an inquest witness has not supported the prosecution case rather he is a hearsay witness and put his left thumb impression on the inquest report. Lallan Kumar (P.W. 8) who has recorded the fardbeyan, himself, is the Investigating Officer of the case, as such fair investigation has not been done. Further, the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case nor the children of the deceased have been examined in this case and none of the prosecution witnesses are eye-witnesses to the occurrence, as such the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

¶36

In the result, impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.02.2004 and order of sentence dated 16.02.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge,

¶37

¶38

Fast Track Court, Sahebganj, in Sessions Case No. 222 of 2001, corresponding to T. R. No. 88 of 2001 arising out of Barhait P.S. Case No. 23 of 2001, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code by extending benefit of doubt.

¶39

The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from liability of his bail bond.

¶40

Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed.

¶41

Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the

¶42

court concerned, at once for necessary action.

¶43

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶44

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 03.01.2019 Pallavi/

Ramu Marandi v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu Marandi 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

Lal Muni Bhuiya Vs State of Jharkhand

Kalicharan Modi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Lambodar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Sohan Baski Vs State of Jharkhand

Manoj Raut Vs State of Jharkhand

Palton Soren Vs State of Jharkhand