RANCHI, India, Nov. 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

1. Heard learned amicus curiae appearing for appellants Mrs. Supriya Dayal as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Mrs. Priya Shrestha.

2. Both the appeals are directed from the common judgment passed in Sessions Case No. 274/2000 and 70/ 2002 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar dated 24th April, 2002 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals as per fardbeyan of Kauhsalya Devi (informant) dated 04/08/2002 recorded by S.I. A.K. Mishra of Mohanpur Police Station is that the informant's husband used to pull rickshaw, but due to agricultural work in the season of paddy crops, he used to stay at home for cultivation work instead of pulling rickshaw. It is further alleged that after completion of agricultural work on 03.08.2000 her husband went to pull rickshaw. In the night, the informant along with her children were sleeping in the room and motherin-law aged about 70 years was sleeping in the cow-shed for looking after the cows and bullocks. It is further alleged that in the dead of night at about 12 AM - 01:00 AM one Doman Mahto started abusing informant's mother-in-law, then she opened the door and flashed the torch and saw that Doman Mahto having tangi, Ramdeo Mahto and Bardu Mahto were also standing without arm. The informant due to fear closed the door and started raising alarm then, accused persons fled away and some villagers assembled there. The informant again opened the door and noticed that her mother-in-law was lying dead in the cow-shed receiving injuries caused by means of Tangi or Sabbal on her head. It is further alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was land dispute between the parties.

4. On the basis of above information, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 158/2000 dated 04.08.2000 was registered under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against the above named accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused persons for the aforesaid offence, who faced the trial and after completion of trial impugned judgment and order was passed, which has been assailed in these appeals.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution story as projected in the F.I.R. by the sole eye-witness namely Kaushalya Devi is absolutely not believable at all, even if her version is taken to be granted at its face value, no overt act or any kind of participation in causing murder of the deceased is attributed against the appellants. It is very strange that she heard hulla in the dead of night, opened the door and saw the accused persons and again closed the door and slept away. Except the informant, no other eye-witness has been examined in this case and nothing incriminating material has been collected during investigation showing involvement and participation of the appellants in the alleged offence of murder rather they have falsely been implicated in this case for wrecking vengeance against them. The learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence of sole eye-witness, which also does not find corroboration from the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased as pointed out in her post-mortem report (Exhibit-2). Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside allowing these appeals.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=JWh84WYVV%2BM86K4sXzCHnyoMkp0P2F7WCwDolp41E4yBxCU%2Bdsf%2FgtDijYz4V35C&caseno=Cr.A(DB)/207/2002&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010188852002&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.