Prakash Kisku vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.07.2002 and order of sentence dated 26.07.2002, passed by learned 1st  Addl. Sessions Judge, Pakur, in Sessions Case No.164/ 1995 (arising out of Pakur [T] P.S. Case No.161/1994) whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

The case of prosecution is at the instance of the informant (P.W.1) in which he stated that on 26.09.1994 at about 7:30 a.m. one Pradhan Samual Soren informed that his uncle was murdered at Village- Kusumdanga. On receiving such information, he went to the Village- Kusumdanga and found that his uncle (Ram Chandra Murmu) was lying dead. He found several injuries on the person of the deceased and also found that right leg of the deceased was broken by twisting. When he reached there where Thakur Waski and his daughter Chand Muni Waski and Chito Hembrom told him that on the last evening at about 7 p.m. on hearing cry of Ram Chandra Murmu when they rushed at his house, they saw this appellant assaulting the deceased with lathi and stone and when they tried to save him, they were also threatened.

On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the Police instituted First Information Report being Pakur [T] P.S. Case No.161/1994 under Section 302 IPC against the accused person/ appellant. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet and cognizance was taken and the appellant/accused was put on trial for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

In order to prove the case, altogether six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and relevant documents have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits.

Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the entire materials on record. We find that the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses. P.W.1 (John Murmu) is the informant of the case who is not an eye witness to the occurrence and derived his knowledge about it from Thakur Waski, Chand Muni Waski and Chito Hembrom.

Thakur Waski has been examined as P.W.3 and Chito Hembrom has been examined as P.W.4. These two witnesses have turned hostile as they have not supported the case of prosecution. Chand Muni Waski has been examined as P.W.2 and she stated that on hearing cry of the deceased, she along with Thakur Waski and Chito Hembrom went to the house of the deceased and saw the deceased writhing in pain. This appellant was also present there. In her cross-examination at Para-4, she has stated that she has not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased.

Thus, from the evidence, we find that the there is no eye witness to the assault. P.W.5 is the formal witness who exhibited the formal F.I.R. and PW 6 is the witness to the inquest report. Surprisingly, in this case neither the post-mortem report was exhibited nor the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was produced and examined as a witness. The I.O. has also not been produced by the prosecution. The prosecution, thus failed to prove the cause of death. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was assaulted by stone and was mercilessly beaten by stick and his leg was also twisted, but all these injuries have not been proved by the prosecution.

Further we find that there is even no eye witness to the said occurrence. Thus, we come to the conclusion that there is no legal evidence to convict the appellant in this case. In absence of any legal evidence, this appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charge.

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. Sureties are discharged from the liability of their bail bond.

Criminal Appeal (DB) is allowed.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

Let T.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.