Jharkhand High Court
Rinku @ Md. Rinku vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 429 of 2002
Rinku @ Md. Rinku, S/o Md. Yahiya Kamal, R/o Village Shamser
Nagar, PS Bhuli (Bank More), District Dhanbad
... ... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
(Arising out of Judgment of Conviction dated 16.07.2002 and Order
of Sentence dated 17.07.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge-X, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 172 of 2000)
----
For the Appellant : M/s B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
Nutan Sharma & Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms.Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
----
JUDGMENT
Dated : 22.10.2024
By Court:
Heard the parties.
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction
dated 16.07.2002 and Order of Sentence dated 17.07.2002 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 172 of 2000,
whereby the appellant along with one Md. Idul has been held guilty and
convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal
Code and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
under Sections 302/34 of IPC.
2. Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,
submits that PW-2 is the sole eye witness of the said occurrence and is also the
informant. He further submits that Md. Idul, who has been convicted by the
same impugned judgment, had preferred an appeal bearing Cr. Appeal (D.B.)
No. 457 of 2002. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered the evidence
and vide judgment dated 18.02.2011 acquitted Md. Idul after holding that PW 2
as a chance witness and that his deposition did not inspire confidence. Learned
senior counsel submits that when a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already
discarded the deposition of PW-2, nothing remains in this appeal to be decided
afresh.
3. Learned counsel for the State though has defended the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence but admits the aforesaid facts.
4. The FIR in the instant case is Ext.2 which was lodged by PW-2, who is
younger brother of the deceased. He stated that his brother-deceased on
01.05.1999 left his house in the morning but did not return for taking meals.
The informant went in search of his deceased brother and had claimed to have
met Md. Sahazad, Md. Zahid and Guddu. Three persons told him that they had
seen the deceased at Rahamatganj. The informant thereafter along with these
three persons went to Rahamatganj and as soon as they reached, the ground
near the clinic of one Dr. Salauddin, they saw Rinku (appellant), co-accused
Istyaque holding the deceased and Md. Idul giving a dagger blow and stabbing
the deceased on his chest. The victim fell down after getting repeated stabs
with the weapon. The accused also chased the informant and companions but
the people of the locality gathered on hearing alarm and the accused managed
to flee away from there.
5. The judgment dated 18.02.2011 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 457 of 2002
has been produced before us.
6. After going through the judgment and the evidence on record, we find that Md.
Sahazad and Md Zahid, the persons, who informed the informant about
presence of the deceased at Rahamatganj, have been declared hostile. Guddu,
the remaining companion of the informant, did not support the prosecution case
and turned hostile.
7. The only material to convict the appellant is based on the testimony of PW-2.
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 457 of 2002
after considering the evidence of PW-2, in paragraph 5 has disbelieved him.
The Co-ordinate Bench has arrived at conclusion that this witness is a chance
witness and his testimony does not inspire confidence in order to sustain
conviction. The Co-ordinate Bench had also concluded that PW-1 has made a
thoughtless attempt to improve the case. It has also been held that PW-1 is none
but the mother of the deceased is totally unbelievable.
8. When the Co-ordinate Bench has already discarded the evidence of the two
main witnesses holding them to be unreliable for good reasons and admittedly,
when there is no other evidence, we are of the opinion that the fate of this
appellant should be same as to that of Md. Idul.
9. Thus, considering the aforesaid judgment passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 457
of 2002, wherein Md. Idul has been acquitted, and also keeping in view the
principle of parity and the judicial discipline, we do not find any material to
arrive at a different conclusion.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Trial Court in this appeal is set aside and this Criminal Appeal is
allowed.
Since the appellant is already on bail, the sureties are discharged from
the liabilities of the bail bonds.
Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned
forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 22nd October, 2024
AKT/Satendra
