Allowed

Parmeshwar Ram v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Aug 2023Cr.A(SJ)/765/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal challenging a conviction and sentence for offences under sections 307 and 324 of the I.P.C., the High Court of Jharkhand examined the prosecution evidence. Finding major contradictions regarding the time of incident, the nature of injuries, the missing weapon, and the lack of eyewitnesses, the Court held that the prosecution failed to make out a case.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Namely Parmeshwar Ram is acquitted from the charges under section 307 and 324 of the I.P.C. and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.

Parmeshwar Ram Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 765 of 2007

Parmeshwar Ram

... Appellant

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand … Respondent

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶9

¶10

For the Appellant :Mr. Purnendu Sharan, A.C For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.

¶11

¶12

Oral Judgment in Court

¶13

Order No. 09/ Dated: 14.08.2023

¶14

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.03.2007 passed by Sri Madan Mohan Singh, then learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-VII, Hazaribag by which the appellant namely Parmeshwar Ram has been convicted for the offences under sections 307 and 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven (07) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under section 307 of the I.P.C.

¶15

The appellant has further been sentenced to undergo period of R.I. for two (02) years for the offence under section 324 of the I.P.C.

¶16

However both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

¶17

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.03.2005 at 10:00 am while the informant was selling grocery in his shop then the appellant namely Parmeshwar Ram came to his shop and demanded ration and for which the informant refused to give any ration as there was earlier amount due to him. Thereafter the appellant had returned to his house and

¶18

¶19

immediately came back his shop and started abusing him and assaulted at his neck by knife in order to kill him and due to which he sustained injury and fell down in the ground and he was saved by the villager namely Ajit Gope and near by the people and they had also seen the occurrence. It is also alleged that the appellant fled away after taking some money from his shop.

¶20

On the basis of fardbain of one Jagdish Mahto, the Informant -Officer In-charge, recorder Sadar P.S. Case No. 89 of 2005 under sections 324 /307/ 379 of the I.P.C. on 06.03.2005 against the appellant.

¶21

Heard Mr. Purnendu Sharan , learned Amicus Curiae, who has been appointed by this Court to assist this Court on behalf of the appellant as the appellant had failed to appear and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned Amicus Curie for the appellant that that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in eye of law and has been passed in a mechanical manner. It is submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. It is submitted that no offence under section 307 of I.P.C. is made out against the appellant and no repeated blow of knife has been given by the appellant to the Informant . It is further submitted that the even Doctor i.e. P.W. 3 has stated before the learned Court below that injury sustained by the informant is simple in nature. It is further submitted that even the Doctor has found that such injury is possible due to fall on sharp stone. It is submitted that blood stain clothes of the informant were neither seized by the police nor send for FSL Examination. It is further submitted that knife, which was illegally used for causing injury to the informant, was not also seized. It is submitted that even the

¶23

¶24

P.W. 4, who is the nephew of the appellant and who was an inimical terms with the appellant, also admitted that the appellant had gone to the shop of the informant for demanding his dues of salary. It is submitted that even P.W. 1 has admitted that the appellant was a labour in the shop of the informant, however these facts had not been considered by the learned Trial Court below. It is further submitted that this is at best the case of under section 324 of the I.P.C but no offence under section 307 of the I.P.C. made out and as such the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence may be set-aside and the appellant may be acquitted.

¶25

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the A.P.P. has submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below are fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court It is submitted that the appellant is the aggressor and had caused injury in the neck of the informant. It is submitted that it was the intention of the appellant to take away the life of the informant by giving knife blow on the neck of the informant and thus the learned Court below has committed no illegality by convicting the appellant for the offences under sections 307 and 324 of the I.P.C. It is submitted that the P.W. 6 is the Informant of this case and he has fully supported the prosecution case during his evidence. It is submitted that the P.W. 1 Ajit Kumar Gope is an eyewitness of the occurrence and he had seen the appellant injury on the neck of the informant. Thus, the P.W. 1 has also supported and corroborated the prosecution case and evidence of the informant . It is submitted that P.W. 2 Mahabir Gope , P.W. 4 Raju Ram and the P.W. 5 Chaita Ram have also supported and corroborated the prosecution case and evidence of Informants P.W. 6 Jagdish Mahto and also supported the injury sustained by the informant

¶26

¶27

on the neck . It is submitted that the P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 stated that the appellant had caused injury by knife on the neck of the informant. It is submitted that P.W. 3 is the Doctor had found injury on the neck of the informant and proved the injury report which is marked as Exhibit – 1.It is submitted that the neck is a vital part of the body and as such the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant and thus no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below by convicting the appellant for the offences under sections 324/ 307 of the I.P.C. and the learned Court below has imposed sentence on different Courts as mentioned above and hence this Criminal Appeal may be dismissed.

¶28

Perused the Lower Court Records of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 7. It transpires that this Criminal Appeal was filed on 03.07.2007 and admitted on 09.08.2007 and the appellant was granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 30.01.2008 (Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik)

¶29

Thereafter, the case was placed before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 21.07.2022 and summon was issued by the appellant for appearance, however, the appellant did not appear, although notice was served upon the relative to the appellant. Even the appellant did not appear on 16.01.2023, 24.06.2023, 17.07.2023 and thereafter on 17.07.2023, Sri Purnendu Sharan, Advocate was appointed as an Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant to assist this Court.

¶30

It transpires that the F.I.R. was lodged on 06.03.2005 by the informant against the appellant for assaulting him on 06.03.2005 at around 10:00 to 10:30 am .

¶31

It transpires that the police, had submitted the chargesheet against the appellant on 05.05.2005 for the offences under

¶32

¶33

section 307 and 324 of the I.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. Thereafter on 05.05.2005 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh had taken cognizance against the appellant for the offences under section 324 and 307 of the I.P.C.

¶34

It further transpires that the charges were framed against the appellant for the offences under section 307 and 324 of the I.P.C on 27.06.2005 by Sri Madan Mohan Singh, then learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. –VII, Hazaribag and to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶35

The prosecution in support of its case got examined six (6 witnesses) who are as follows:-

¶36

(i) P.W. 1 is Ajit Kumar Gope,

¶37

(ii) P.W. 2 is Mahabir Gope,

¶38

(iii) P.W. 3 is Dr. Raghu Nath Singh ,

¶39

(iv) P.W. 4 is Raju Ram,

¶40

(v) P.W. 5 is Chaita Ram and

¶41

(vi) P.W. 6is Jagdish Mahto i.e the informant

¶42

The prosecution in support of case got marked the following as the Exhibits which is as follows:-

¶43

Exhibit 1 is the injury report of the injured –

¶44

informant.

¶45

Thereafter the appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 05.02.2007 and he had denied the circumstances

¶46

put forth before him.

¶47

Neither any defence witness was examined nor were any documents was marked as Exhibit on behalf of the defence i.e. the appellant.

¶48

Thereafter the learned Court below has convicted the appellant as mentioned above .

¶49

Now this Court has to examine as to whether the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is

¶50

¶51

proper or not ?

¶52

It transpires that the informant had lodged the F.I.R. against the appellant Parmeshwar Ram on 06.03.2005 at 1:30 hrs. for causing injury on his neck by giving him knife blow with the intention to kill him . However the said F.I.R. was seen in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh on 09.03.2005 i.e. after delay of three (03) days and for which no plausible explanation has been furnished on behalf of the prosecution for such delay.

¶53

So far as prosecution evidence is concerned, P.W. 1 is Ajit Kumar Gope and although who has tried to support the prosecution case during his evidence that the appellant had assaulted the informant on the neck by knife and he also tried to save him due to he sustained cut injury at 1:30 P.M. on 06.03.2005. However during cross-examintion he stated that he had not seen the appellant giving knife blow. He again stated that he also sustained cut injury in his hand but he failed to show any injury report regarding injuries sustained by him. Even the evidence of P.W. 1 does not support the prosecution case in view of the fact that occurrence took place at 1:30 P.M. but the time of occurrence as shown in F.I.R. is around 10:00-11:00 am whereas he has claimed to have seen the occurrence at 1:30 pm during his evidence.

¶54

Thus P.W. 1 is not an eye witness of the occurrence and the evidence of P.W. 1 is not reliable .

¶55

P.W. 2 is Mahabir Gope and who also stated during his evidence that the occurrence took place between 10:00-11:00 am in the morning and at that time he was in residence and he learnt about the occurrence , however he had not named any villager present at the time of occurrence .

¶56

¶57

During cross –examination he stated that he had not seen the appellant for assaulting the informant and he was inside the house. He also admitted that the accused –appellant was doing work in the shop of the informant .

¶58

Thus, it is evident that the P.W. 2 is a hearsay witness and he had not seen the occurrence, hence the evidence of P.W. 2 is not reliable.

¶59

P.W. 4 is Raju Ram, who is the nephew of the Informant and stated during his evidence that the appellant had gone to the shop with one big knife and had assaulted him.

¶60

Even during his cross- examination he admitted to have disputes with his uncle i.e. the Informant. He also further admitted that the appellant had certain amount due from the informant and the appellant had gone to the shop of the informant for demanding his arrears of amount. He also admitted that the appellant was the employee of the Informant. He also admitted that he was inside the house when the appellant had assaulted the informant.

¶61

Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 4, it is evident that he is also a hearsay witness and he had not seen the occurrence. He admitted that the appellant was the worker of the informant. However P.W. 4 evidence reveals that the appellant had gone to the shop of the informant for demanding his arrears of money and for which there may be possibility of false implication of the instance of the informant by the P.W. 4 Raju Ram.

¶62

P.W. 5 is Chaita Ram who is also hearsay witness as he had stated that he learnt about the occurrence of assault committed by the appellant upon the informant.

¶63

During cross- examination he admitted that he had not seen the occurrence.

¶64

¶65

Thus, the P.W. 5 is a hearsay witness and the evidence

¶66

of P.W. 5 is not reliable .

¶67

P.W. 3 is Dr. Raghu Nath Singh who had examined the injured Jagdish Mahto on 06.03.2005 and found following injuries on his person as follows :-

¶68

(i) Incised wound over lower part of throat measuring 1” x 1/8” x skin deep.

¶69

(ii) Nature of injury was simple and caused by sharp cutting weapon.

¶70

(iii) Age of injury was within one hour.

¶71

During cross-examination, he further stated that he had examined the injured on being brought by the police but who had brought the injury report, had not been mentioned in the Register by him. He also could not say the name of Constable who had brought the injured. He further admitted that he had mentioned the time of injury as per information of the injured .

¶72

From perusal of Exhibit -1, it reveals that it was given on the plain paper which does not bear even the seal of the hospital. It also reveals from the injury report that the injured informant was not unconscious .

¶73

P.W. 6 is Jagdish Mahto i.e. the Informant and during his evidence he stated that while he was sitting in his shop at 9:00 am in the morning , then the appellant came to his shop when he demanded the money of ration from him, then appellant assaulted him by knife due to which he became unconscious and he was taken to Hospital, after some time. However, he failed to disclose the name of the person who had taken him to the Hospital while he was unconscious. He further stated that he had seen the knife to the police and the police had informed him that they will come back again and take the knife from him.

¶74

¶75

During his cross-examination, he stated that he had not raised any alarm at the time of occurrence. He further stated that the policed had not seized blood stain clothes from him . He had denied the suggestion that the appellant was doing labour in his shop and he falsely implicated him on demanding money by the appellant.

¶76

Thus from the scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 6 , it is evident that he had tried to support his case for sustaining injury by knife on his neck and he has simply stated that he had sustained knife below given by the appellant when he demanded money of ration and even he had shown the knife to the police. It appears to be an improbable story that the appellant would leave the knife in the shop of the informant after assaulting him. He has falsely stated that he is unknown to the appellant because P.W. 2 Mahabir Gope and P.W. 4 Raju Ram had already stated that the appellant was an employee of the informant.

¶77

28 It is further evident from the evidence of the P.W. 6 which has been presented on behalf of the prosecution itself that the appellant had gone to the shop of the informant to demand his arrears of money. Thus it appears to be an ill motive on behalf of the informant to implicate the appellant who was a labour in the shop of the informant.

¶78

It further reveals from the perusal of Lower Court Record that the appellant had remained in Jail for a long period during the trial due to poverty.

¶79

Although the learned Court below had provided a defence counsel from the panel of the State during the trial before the learned Court below however the appellant remained in custody from 09.03.2005 till 30.01.2008 i.e. for around two years and ten months.

¶80

¶81

Considering the major contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents filed on behalf of the prosecution, this Court of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove charges against the appellant, Accordingly the appellant namely Parmeshwar Ram is acquitted from the charges under section 307, 324 of the I.P.C. and he is also discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.

¶82

The learned Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5500/- to Mr. Purnendu Sharan Advocate as an Amicus Curiae, with the approval of the Executive, Chairman, JHALSA who has been appointed as the Amicus Curiae in the light of order dated 17.07.2023 passed by this Court who had assisted this Court very ably .

¶83

Let a copy of this order to be send to the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA for the needful .

¶84

Thus this Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 765 of 2007 is allowed with the observation and direction as mentioned above.

¶85

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶86

Bibha/

Parmeshwar Ram v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmeshwar Ram 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

Suleman Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bahadur Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jai Prakash Dalmia Vs State of Jharkhand

Sandeep Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ramchandra Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Batasi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand