Jharkhand High Court
Jetha Kachhap vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 September, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 682 of 2022
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 07.05.2022 and Order of
sentence dated 12.05.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No.860 of 2013(A) ]
Jetha Kachhap, aged about 37 Years, S/o Late Johan
Kachhap, R/o - Village - Dumardagarhi, P.O. + P.S. -
Karra, District - Khunti.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
WITH
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 570 of 2022
Sanatan Swansi, aged about 32 years, S/o Dashrath
Swansi, R/o - Village - Dumardagarhi, P.O. + P.S. - Karra,
District - Khunti.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. S.P. Roy, Amicus
For the Respondent : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
[In Cr.A.(D.B.) No. 682/2022]
For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP.
[In Cr.A.(D.B.) No. 570/2022]
.....
C.A.V. on 21.08.2024 Pronounced on 0 3 .09.2024
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Above appellants have preferred the above
captioned appeals assailing their conviction and
sentence dated 07.05.2022 / 12.05.2022, passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, in
Sessions Trial No. 860 of 2013(A), arising out of
Karra P.S. Case No.64 of 2011 (G.R. Case No.381 of
2011) registered under Section 302 read with
Section 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the
C.L.A. Act for committing murder of one Manoj
Mahto, wherein, the appellant - Jetha Kachhap
was held guilty for committing offences under
Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 27 of
the Arms Act and appellant - Sanatan Swansi was
held guilty for committing offence under Sections
302 / 34 of I.P.C. and both the appellants have been
awarded sentence of imprisonment for life along
with fine of Rs. One Lakh for the offence punishable
under sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and appellant - Jetha Kachhap has been further
sentenced to R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs.
50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were
directed to run concurrently with default
stipulation in case of non-payment of fine.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The prosecution story as depicted in the F.I.R.
lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of one Bigal Mahto
(P.W.-2) recorded on 08.10.2011 at about 19:30
hours at Sawra Bazar near Yatri Shed stating
therein that on 08.10.2011 at about 2:00 P.M., the
informant went to Sawra Bazar for selling
vegetables and installed his shop near the Yatri
Shed. It is further alleged that at about 4:00 P.M.,
informant's son Manoj Mahto (deceased) and
Jitendra Mahto (P.W.-6) arrived at the shop,
meanwhile, one Pancham Mahto and one Munda
boy of Village - Sawra approached there and asked
to Manoj to enjoy Hariya, to which he declined, but
they forcibly took Manoj with them and on
suspicion, informant also followed them towards
the Yatri Shed protesting the taking away of his son
Manoj. It is further alleged that when the
informant's son along with aforesaid persons
reached near the Yatri Shed, meanwhile, Jetha
Kachhap (appellant in Cr.A.(D.B.) No. 682/2022),
Jagran Munda, Sanatan Swansi (appellant in
Cr.A.(D.B.) No. 570/2022) and two other unknown
extremists also came out from a ditch and all of
them surrounded Manoj and started firing over
him. As a result of which, informant's son fell down.
The informant along with his younger son, Jitendra
Mahto (P.W.-6) got scared and fled away towards
their home. Thereafter, the informant informed the
matter to police through telephonic message and
after arrival of police at the place of occurrence, the
informant again went to the place of occurrence.
The informant has further disclosed that the motive
behind the occurrence is that there was land
dispute between informant and "fhufhera" brother
of Pancham Mahto namely, Ramdhan Mahto and
Somra Mahto, who have close contact with PLFI
extremists. It is alleged that in the last week, Sunil
Mahto, Son of Ramdhan Mahto and Prakash
Mahto, Son of Somra Mahto had threatened to kill
him, if he will go over the disputed land. Hence, all
the accused persons under deep rooted conspiracy
with the help of members of PLFI have killed the son
of the informant by shooting.
3. On the basis of above informantion, Karra P.S. Case
No. 64/2011 dated 08.10.2011 was registered for
the offence under Sections 302/34, 120B of I.P.C.,
Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the
C.L.A. Act against Jetha Kachhap, Jagran Munda,
Sanatan Swansi, Barna Oraon, Pancham Mahto,
Sunil Mahto, Prakash Mahto, one Munda boy and
two unknown persons and charge of investigation
was handed over to S.I. Subhchandra Jha (P.W.-7),
who after conclusion of investigation submitted first
charge sheet No. 74/2013 dated 30.09.2013
against accused Pancham Mahato, showing
accused Jetha Kachhap, Sanatan Swansi and
Barna Munda absconding. Later on, charge sheet
was also submitted against the present appellants
Jetha Kachhap and Sanatan Swansi in the split-up
case. Both the accused (appellants) denied the
charges and claimed to be tried.
4. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence was passed, which has
been assailed in these appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of
the appellants has raised the following points of
argument:-
(i) There is no iota of legal evidence proving the
involvement of appellants in the alleged
offence of murder.
(ii) There is no direct or circumstantial evidence
against the appellants showing any overt act
committed by the appellants.
(iii) The testimony of ocular witnesses (P.W.-2
and P.W.-6) regarding bullet injury
sustained by the deceased is absolutely in
contradiction with the medical evidence.
(iv) Admittedly, there was no previous enmity
between the informant or deceased with the
present appellants and no prior
acquaintance with the appellants is also
admitted.
(v) The genesis and manner of occurrence as
depicted in the evidence of informant (P.W.-
2) and P.W.-6 does not conclusively prove
that the appellants were perpetrator of the
crime.
(vi) The learned trial court without properly
appreciating the testimony of aforesaid eye-
witnesses and ignoring the materials elicited
in the cross-examination demolishing their
testimony, has arrived at wrong conclusion,
which is absolutely perverse beyond weight
of evidence and based upon own
imagination of the learned trial court.
In the above premises, the impugned Judgment
of conviction and sentence of appellants is not
legally sustainable and fit to be set aside and the
appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges
levelled against them.
6. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State refuting the aforesaid points of argument
advanced on behalf of the appellants has submitted
that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly
appreciated the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-6, who
are eye witnesses of the occurrence and also
considered the other material evidence available on
record corroborative of the prosecution story and
arrived at right conclusion that Jetha Kachhap
along with Barna Oraon fired gunshot upon Manoj
Mahto, which hit his chest, leg and stomach and
other accused persons were surrounding him. The
injuries are also corroborative from the medical
evidence i.e. Post-Mortem Report of the deceased.
There is no legal force in the arguments of learned
counsel for the appellants and no valid reasons to
interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence of appellants. These appeals have no
merits and fit to be dismissed.
7. For better appreciation of the case, it is pertinent to
go through the brief resume of evidence adduced by
prosecution.
P.W.-1 - Chandrabhan Ram has conducted
supplementary investigation of this case
against only accused Barna Oraon and
submitted supplementary charge sheet
against him on the strength of attachment of
his property.
P.W.-2 - Bigal Mahto is the informant of the
case. He has deposed that on 08.10.2011 at
about 4:30 P.M., he has gone to sell
vegetables produced from his field at Sawra
Bazar along with his sons Jitendra and
Bharat. Meanwhile, MCC party members
approached there, then he told his son
Manoj to fled away, but in the meantime,
Pancham Mahto arrived there, who
requested Manoj to take Hariya drink and
accompanied with Manoj went towards Yatri
Shed where Barna and Jetha also arrived
and Barna fired upon Manoj and other
accused persons namely, Sanatan, Jagran
and other unknown persons were also
present there. He has further deposed that
after fire shot given by Barna, Jetha also
fired twice on chest and stomach of Manoj
and due to fear, this witness fled away to his
home and thereafter went to Karra Police
Station and on advice of police, he returned
to his home and police went to get the dead
body of his son from Sawra Bazar. This
witness has disclosed previous enmity with
Ramdhan Mahto, Somra Mahto and their
sons Sunil and Prakash in connection with
land situated at Village-Padampur.
In his cross-examination, this witness
admits that his house is situated at a
distance of 4 KM from Sawra Bazar and
Karra Police Station is situated at a distance
of 10 KM. After returning from the place of
occurrence, he went to Police Station by his
motorcycle and categorically admits that he
has not informed the police about the
occurrence through telephonic message, as
mentioned in the F.I.R., rather he himself
went to police station and reported the
occurrence.
Attention of this witness has been
drawn towards his fardbeyan and re-
statement recorded by Police, wherein he
has not stated that after fire shot given by
Barna, Jetha also fired twice on Manoj at
Chest and Stomach. The attention of the I.O.
(P.W.-7) has also been drawn towards the
above contradictions at para-32, wherein he
has clearly admitted that this witness has
not disclosed before him either in the
fardbeyan or in re-statement that after firing
by Barna, Jetha Kachhap also fired twice on
chest and stomach of deceased Manoj. This
witness has also disclosed that his son has
received total four firearm injuries. He has
also admitted that his son Jitendra Mahto
and deceased Manoj are also involved in 3-4
criminal cases. He has also categorically
admitted that prior to occurrence, there was
no inimical terms of any kind with the
accused Pancham Mahto, Jagran, Sanatan
or Jetha.
P.W.-3 Bharat Mahto and P.W.-4 Ram
Sewak Mahto have been declared hostile by
the prosecution and expressed their no
personal knowledge about the occurrence,
rather they have heard that Manoj was
murdered.
P.W.-5 - Dr. Sunil Khalkho has conducted
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased
Manoj Mahto and found following injuries:-
(i) Lacerated wound on back side
size ½" x ½".
(ii) Lacerated wound on abdomen
size ½" x 1", 1 x 2",
(iii) Open lacerated wound on left
thigh near inguinal region size 4" x 3".
This injury is exit of bullet.
(iv) Open lacerated wound on left
thigh size ½" x ½". It is entry of bullet.
First and second injuries were opined to be
caused by sharp cutting substance and
third and fourth injuries are bullet injuries,
which are ante-mortem in nature. Cause of
death is opined due to massive hemorrhage
and shock within 12 to 48 hours.
In cross-examination, this witness
admits that no blackening or tattoo mark
was found around injury no. 3 and 4 or any
gun powder was found around the above
wound. Hence, this fire was made from a
long distance. No bullet was found inside
the dead body. Injury Nos. 3 & 4 cannot be
said to be caused by fire arm only.
P.W.-6 Jitendra Kumar Mahto is the son of
the informant and brother of the deceased.
According to his evidence, on 08.10.2011 at
about 4-5 PM, he was present at Sawra
Bazar, meanwhile, members of PLFI
extremists party namely, Barna Oraon,
Jetha Kachhap, Sanatan Swansi and Jagran
Munda arrived there and his brother Manoj
was brought towards passenger Shed by
Pancham Mahto, where the above accused
persons were present. He has stated in clear
cut terms that at first Barna Oraon fired two
shots on Manoj Mahto, thereafter, Jetha
Kachhap fired twice and Sanatan Swansi,
Jagran Munda were surrounding his
brother. He has seen the occurrence at a
distance of 10-15 steps. He has further
described that his brother Manoj has
sustained one fire injury on his leg, one
on his stomach and two fire arm injuries
on shoulder.
In his cross-examination, he admits
that at the time of occurrence, there was
crowd of 200-300 persons. He also admits
that his brother and he himself have been
involved in 3-4 criminal cases for the offence
of extortion and Arms Act. According to
him, the firearm injury was caused from
a distance of 1 or 2 hands (approx. 3 ft.).
His statement was recorded by Police on
the same day i.e. 08.10.2011 at his home,
which was signed by him and on that
basis, the case was registered. He also
admits that he returned to his home at
about 6:30-7 PM. This witness further
admits in his cross-examination that he was
not acquainted with Jetha Kachhap and
Sanatan Swansi prior to occurrence and
they were never related with him or his
family members or ever visited to his
house. He also admits that prior to date of
occurrence i.e. 08.10.2011 or afterwards, he
has never talked with Sanatan Swansi and
Jetha Kachhap nor ever visited with them,
rather for the first time, on the date of
occurrence, he came to know the names of
Jetha Kachhap and Sanatan Swansi in the
market. He also admits that there was no
enmity of any kind with Pancham Mahto,
Jetha, Sanatan, Jagran or Barna with this
witness or his family members. He also
admits that no Test Identification Parade
was held by Police after arrest of Jetha
Kachhap and Sanatan Swansi. He has
denied the suggestion of defence that he was
not present at the place of occurrence at the
relevant time and has given false evidence
against the accused persons and he has
seen no occurrence at all.
P.W.-7 Subhchandra Jha is the
Investigating Officer of this case. According
to this witness, after receiving charge of
investigation of this case on 08.10.2011, he
visited the place of occurrence at Village-
Sawra weekly hat place and near the Yatri
Shed adjacent to the pitch road, he found
dead body of Manoj Mahto, who was killed
by PLFI extremists by shooting. He recorded
the re-statement of the informant and other
witnesses namely, Jitendra Mahto, Ram
Sewak Mahto, Bharat Mahto, Somit Lakra
etc. and arrested the accused Pancham
Mahto on 17.10.2011. After completion of
investigation submitted charge sheet
against Pancham Mahto and continued
investigation against other accused persons
i.e. Jetha Kachhap, Jagran Munda, Sanatan
Swansi, Prakash Mahto, Sunil Mahto, Barna
Oraon, one Munda boy of Village - Sawra
and two unknown persons. He has further
deposed that in course of supplementary
investigation, Barna Oraon was arrested
and his confessional statement was
recorded on 20.01.2012. Thereafter, he was
transferred and further charge of
investigation was given to the then Officer-
in-Charge, Bindeswari Das.
Admittedly, this witness has not
arrested the present appellants namely,
Jetha Kachhap and Sanatan Swansi nor
submitted charge sheet against them. He
also admits that he received charge of
investigation on 08.10.2011 at about 10:00
PM and visited the place of occurrence on
09.10.2011. Prior to that, the dead body was
lifted and inquest report was prepared. He
has also admitted that the informant Bigal
Mahto (P.W.-2) and his son Jitendra Kumar
Mahto in their statement before him have
not disclosed that at first Barna shot
firearm, thereafter, Jetha also shot fire over
chest and stomach to Manoj Mahto.
Jitendra has also not stated that his brother
has sustained two firearm injuries on his
shoulder, one on his chest and another on
his stomach. He also admits that at the time
of submitting charge sheet against accused
Pancham Mahto, he did not find any cogent
evidence against Sanatan Swansi and Jetha
Kachhap and admits that he has no
knowledge as to under what kind of evidence
and circumstances, they were charge-
sheeted.
8. Apart from aforesaid oral testimony of witnesses,
following documentary evidence has been adduced
by the prosecution:-
Exhibit-P-1 : Signature on the xerox copy of
fardbeyan (with objection).
Exhibit-P-2 : Signature on xerox copy of seizure
list (with objection).
Exhibit-P-3 : Postmortem examination report.
Exhibit-P-4 : Xerox copy of formal FIR (with
objection).
Exhibit-P-5 : Xerox copy of inquest report.
9. It appears that common question has been
prepared for examination of present appellants
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein it has
been asked that they have caused firearm injury to
Manoj Mahto by shooting and also belong to PLFI
extremists. No oral or documentary evidence has
been adduced by the defence.
10. It appears that on the basis of above evidence, the
learned trial court has arrived at conclusion that all
the witnesses have supported the prosecution story
particularly, P.W.-2 and P.W.-6, who happens to be
eye-witnesses of the occurrence and it is also
proved that Jetha Kachhap fired gun shot on the
deceased and other accused persons including
Sanatan Swansi had surrounded him. It was
further observed that though the evidence led by
prosecution shows that accused Jetha and Barna
fired gun shots upon Manoj and Sanatan Swansi
did not fire gun shot on the deceased, but it has
come in evidence that Sanatan along with other
accused persons had surrounded Manoj. This act
of accused Sanatan comes within the meaning of
Section 34 of the I.P.C. Therefore, it is concluded
that all the accused persons in furtherance of their
common intention, out of whom Barna and Jetha
had fired gunshot injury upon Manoj, resulting in
his death, so the liability of accused Jetha Kachhap
and accused Sanatan Swansi, for committing the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
is established beyond all shadow of reasonable
doubts, by invoking the aid of Section 34 of the
I.P.C. Further, offence under Section 27 of the Arms
Act is established against Jetha Kachhap, who has
been attributed opening firearm against the
deceased. The accused persons were acquitted from
the charge under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act.
11. From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony
of witnesses and the documentary evidence
adduced by the prosecution, following material
facts may be deduced: -
(i) The occurrence is of 08.10.2011 at about 4-
4:30 PM.
(ii) The basis of FIR is fardbeyan of informant
Bigal Mahto recorded by S.I. Anup Kumar
Karmakar, O/C of Karra P.S. on 08.10.2011
at about 19:30 hours at Sawra Bazar near
Yatri Shed.
(iii) In the FIR, there is clear cut allegation that
at about 4:00 PM, informant's son Manoj
Mahto and Jitendra Mahto were also present
at the shop of informant.
(iv) Pancham Mahto and one Munda boy came
and took Manoj Mahto against his will for
taking Hariya drink near Yatri Shed, where
Jetha Kachhap, Jagran Munda, Sanatan
Swansi and two other unknown extremists
fired upon Manoj, due to which, he fell
down, then informant and his son, due to
fear, fled away to their home.
(v) In the FIR, the informant has asserted about
motive behind the occurrence is their
dispute with Ramdhan Mahto and Somra
Mahto and Pancham Mahto is "Fufhera"
brother of Ramdhan Mahto.
(vi) It is alleged that the son of Ramdhan Mahto
namely, Sunil Mahto and one Prakash
Mahto, son of Somra Mahto have threatened
the informant about one week ago in
connection with land situated at Padampur.
Sunil Mahto and Prakash Mahto are also
associated with PLFI extremists, who have
managed this occurrence.
(vii) Out of seven witnesses examined in this
case only P.W.-2 Bigal Mahto (Informant)
and P.W.-6 Jitendra Kumar Mahto, son of
the informant have claimed to be eye-
witness of the occurrence.
(viii) According to P.W.-2 when Pancham Mahto
took away Manoj to take Hariya drink near
Yatri Shed, then Barna and Jetha also
arrived and Barna fired upon Manoj Mahto
and other accused persons namely,
Sanatan, Jagran and unknown were also
present. He further clarifies that after firing
by Barna, Jetha also fired twice on chest and
stomach of Manoj, then due to fear, he fled
away to his home. According to his evidence,
he straight forward went to Karra police
station on his motorcycle and reported the
occurrence, but did not again went to place
of occurrence at Sawra Bazar due to fear. It
also transpires that direct testimony of this
witness disclosing firing by Barna and Jetha
and causing total four firearm injuries to his
son has been deposed for the first time
before the court and does not find place in
his fardbeyan or statement under Section
161 of Cr.P.C. recorded by the I.O. (P.W.-7).
In this regard, the attention of I.O. has also
been drawn, who has disclosed that above
facts were not disclosed by the informant
before him. Another anomalous situation
also has crept in the testimony of P.W.-2
that admittedly he did not go to the place of
occurrence after the incident, but his
fardbeyan has been recorded at Sawra Bazar
at about 7:30 PM by the police, which is
basis of F.I.R. This witness has also failed to
disclose as to how he was acquainted with
accused persons namely, Jagran, Sanatan
or Jetha and admittedly he had no inimical
terms with them.
The testimony of P.W.-2 is further
falsified by the evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Sunil
Khalkho, who conducted autopsy on the
dead body of the deceased and only one fire
arm injury on left thigh of the deceased has
been found, which has been marked as
entry point of bullet. Injury Nos. 1 & 2 are
lacerated wound over back side and on
abdomen. Therefore, the claim of P.W.-2 that
altogether four shot was given by Barna and
two shot by Jetha Kachhap cannot be
believed. In totality, the evidence of P.W.-2
appears to be wholly unreliable and full of
material contradictions and infirmities.
(ix) P.W.-6 Jitendra Mahto, who happens to be
son of informant has also claimed to be eye-
witness of the occurrence. According to his
evidence also in the Sawra Bazar, he was
present with his father and brother,
meanwhile, Pancham Mahto arrived and
brought his brother Manoj towards
Passenger Shed where accused Barna Oraon
fired two shots. Thereafter, Jetha Kachhap
fired twice and he has watched the
occurrence at a distance of 10-15 steps.
According to this witness also his brother
Manoj has sustained one firearm injury on
his leg, one on his stomach and two firearm
injuries on shoulder. Therefore, this witness
claims to have occasion to see the
occurrence at a very close distance i.e. 1-2
hand (approx. 3 ft.) and asserted about four
fire arm injuries, but as per Post Mortem
Report, there is only one firearm injury and
other injuries described by this witness
happens to be sustained in his shoulder,
one injury on stomach and one at the leg.
According to this witness also firearm injury
were caused from very close distance, but
there is no mark of charring or tattooing over
the injuries found on the body of deceased
and in this regard, P.W.-5 Dr. Sunil Khalkho
has categorically testified that the firearm
injury was caused from a long distance and
also opined that it cannot be definitely said
that the injury Nos. 3 & 4 may be caused
only by firearm. According to this witness,
his statement was recorded by Police on the
same day i.e. on 08.10.2011 at his home,
when he returned from the place of
occurrence at about 6:30 - 7 PM. He also
claims that on the basis of his aforesaid
statement, which was also signed by him,
present case was registered. Unlike P.W.-2,
this witness also admits that he was not
acquainted with accused Jetha Kachhap
and Sanatan Swansi prior to occurrence and
had no connection with them nor ever they
have visited to his house and even after date
of occurrence, he never talked with Sanatan
Swansi and Jetha Kachhap. He came to
know the names of the accused persons on
the date of occurrence as heard from others
in the market. He also admits that he had
no enmity of any kind with the accused
persons. It is also obvious from evidence of
P.W.-2 and P.W.-6 that they have not seen
the dead body of the deceased at the place of
occurrence, which was brought to the police
station, then they have occasion to see.
(x) P.W.-7 Subhchandra Jha, who is
Investigating Officer of this case, has
submitted charge sheet against accused
Pancham Mahto, continuing investigation
against the present appellants and others.
He received charge of investigation on
08.11.2011 at about 10:00 PM and
admittedly visited the place of occurrence at
09.10.2011. He also admits that none of the
witnesses have stated before him as to who
has opened firearm against the deceased
and how many shots were given. He also
admits that at the time of submitting charge
sheet, he did not find any cogent evidence
against Sanatan Swansi and Jetha Kachhap
(present appellants).
12. The overall evaluation / assessment of the evidence
of P.W.-2 and P.W.-6, who are the projected eye-
witness of this case does not inspire confidence due
to material contradictions, inconsistencies and
non-disclosure of manner of occurrence in their
earliest statement recorded under Section 161 of
the Cr.P.C as noted above. The injuries caused to
deceased by using firearm as claimed by these
witnesses also do not find any corroboration from
the Post Mortem Report of the deceased. As such,
the testimony of these witnesses laches
creditworthiness to record finding of guilt of
appellants.
13. In our considered view, the learned trial court,
placing reliance upon the testimony of P.W.-2 and
P.W.-6, has recorded finding of guilt of the accused
persons and sentenced them, which appears to be
not justified under law. The learned trial court has
miserably failed to properly appreciate the
testimony of witnesses on their face value, rather
swayed upon only examination-in-chief of the
witnesses. The genesis, manner and place of
occurrence, has not been proved by P.W.-2 and
P.W.-6, no motive or previous enmity or
acquaintance with the appellants has been shown.
The source of identity of appellants and
participation in the alleged crime is also absolutely
doubtful and unreliable.
14. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, We
arrive at definite conclusion that the learned trial
court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence
led by prosecution and ignored the material
contradictions and infirmities appearing in the
evidence of alleged eye witnesses and arrived at
wrong conclusion about guilt of the present
appellants for the offence of murder.
15. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on
record and the submissions raised at the time of
hearing by the counsel of respective parties, We find
merits in these appeals. Accordingly, these
appeals are allowed and impugned judgment of
conviction dated 07.05.2022 and order of
sentence dated 12.05.2022 of the present
appellants is hereby set aside.
16. Appellant Jetha Kachhap is in custody. He is
directed to be released forthwith, unless required in
any other case. Appellant Santan Swansi is on bail.
He is discharged from the liability of bail bonds and
sureties are also discharged.
17. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the
Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of
this Judgment for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 03 r d September, 2024.
Sunil / N.A.F.R.
