The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence for attempted murder and arms possession. The High Court found the prosecution case weak due to hostile witnesses and lack of seized weapons.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.11.2004 were quashed and set aside. The appellant was discharged from bail liability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2007 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 04.11.2004 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 257 of 2003/ 38 of 2004.)
Heera Lal Jha
....Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Appellant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
--
06/25.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant was moving with one Munna Mistri by motorcycle then the accused and other person have tried to stop him and opened fire upon him, which hit on the right arm of the informant, causing bleeding injury. Brother-in-law of the accused has also fired upon the informant, which passed from the side of right ear. Thereafter, the informant fled away on his motorcycle. The accused persons have tried to kill the informant since there is a land dispute between the parties.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant made the following
submissions:
2
(iii) Learned trial court has passed the order without considering the fact that there was an admitted land dispute between the parties, as such due to that reason the appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case with an ulterior motive.
(iv) Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the appellant; as such his conviction for the same is wrong and bad in law.
Relying upon the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that no error has been committed by learned trial court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on L.C.R, it is evident that P.W. 1, Munna Mistry, who accompanied the informant in the motorcycle when the alleged incident took place, has been declared hostile. As a matter of fact, he was said to be the eye witness of the occurrence.
Further, from the deposition of the informant-P.W.3 himself, after firing he fled away on the same motorcycle, but the accused person also chased them and when he entered in his house, the accused person opened fire, which hit on the wall and Benjamin Hembram (P.W.2) and Barnwash Hembram (P.W.6) came there and witness the occurrence. This deposition of the informant is also demolished by the fact that P.W.2 has deposed that he is hearsay witness and P.W.6 did not support the prosecution case and that is the reason P.W.6 has been declared hostile. Thus, it is evident from the record that no eye witness has supported the case.
Further, P.W.5, who is father of the informant has also claimed to be an eye witness. However, from perusal of the fardbeyan coupled with the deposition of the informant, it does not transpire that P.W.5 was the witness of the occurrence.
It also transpires from record that the alleged incident was done by the country made pistol, but unfortunately the prosecution has failed to seize the country made pistol from the appellant. In other words, since no seizure of pistol has been done, the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act becomes doubtful and the appellant deserves benefit of doubt.
3
7. Admittedly, from perusal of the F.I.R coupled with the deposition of P.Ws, it is evident that there were land dispute between the parties and thus false implication cannot be ruled out.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the appellant deserves benefit of doubt and learned trial court has failed to consider the aspects discussed hereinabove. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 04.11.2004 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 257 of 2003/38 of 2004, is hereby, quashed and set aside. As a result, the instant appeal stands allowed.
9. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability of his bail
bond.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial Court and the LCR be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
jk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant deserved benefit of doubt and the conviction was unsustainable due to lack of seized evidence and hostile prosecution witnesses?
Whether the trial court erred in conviction given the admitted land dispute and lack of eyewitness support in the prosecution case?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Heera Lal Jha
The State of Jharkhand
Deepee Keshav Roshan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
