Jharkhand High Court
Sahdeo Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 September, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 26th April 2001 and order of sentence
dated 27th April 2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 709 of 1998 arising out of
Angara P.S. Case No. 26 of 1998, G.R. Case No.1191 of 1998 by the Court of
Learned IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi Jharkhand)
-------
Sahdeo Munda, son of Soma Munda, Resident of P.P. Bamda, P.S. Chainpur
(Gumla), District-Gumla
--- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Ms. Jyoti Nayan, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
-------
Dated 25th September 2024
JUDGMENT
Challenge in the appeal:
The sole appellant namely Sahdeo Munda has been convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment of conviction dated
26th April 2001 and order of sentence dated 27th April 2001 passed in Sessions
Trial No. 709 of 1998 arising out of Angara P.S. Case No. 26 of 1998, G.R. Case
No.1191 of 1998 by the Court of learned IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi.
2. Since no body had been appearing for the appellant, Ms. Jyoti
Nayan, the learned counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Court vide
order dated 08.08.2024 for giving proper assistance in this appeal.
Prosecution Story:
3. The prosecution story is based on the fardbeyan of Etwari Devi
(P.W.-6) whose statement was recorded by Angara Police Station in the District
of Ranchi on 21.05.1998 at 11:30 hours at village Torang, P.S. Angara District
Ranchi. The said informant of the instant case stated that her husband
(deceased) was a teacher in a primary school and her daughter Anita Kachap
(P.W.-1) was living in the house of her Phuwa (Aunt) at Gumla for her study. It
has further been stated that at Gumla the daughter of the informant came in
contact with Laldeo Kumar Munda resident of village P.P. Banda at Gumla and
he was willing to marry with her daughter and he had come to the house of the
informant along with her daughter once or twice. When Laldeo Kumar Munda
started to lay his pressure on the informant to marry her daughter with him then
the informant had withdrawn her daughter from the school and got her admitted
at Jonha High School in April 1998. According to further case of the
prosecution the daughter of the informant received one letter by post which had
been written by Laldeo Kumar Munda. The daughter of the informant had also
shown that letter to the informant herself. It was written in the letter asking her
daughter to meet with him (the said Laldeo Munda) at Jonha Bazar on
19.05.1998 and if she would not come to meet him, the author of the letter (co-
accused Laldeo Munda) would himself will come to her house to meet her.
According to further case of the prosecution on 20.05.1998, the
informant was sleeping in her house along with her daughter and her husband
and two sons. The door of the house was opened as it was a summer season.
The informant got up on hearing some sound of the persons then she saw that
the boy (the said Laldeo Munda) who wanted to marry her daughter along with
four or five other persons entered the house. At that time, it was 10 P.M. at
night. The informant in the light of torch could see all other friends of that body
who were wearing pants and shirts and were young persons. All of a sudden
one boy came near the informant and asked her to keep quiet and threatened
her and Laldeo (co-accused not appellant) with help of his other friends
inflicted knife injuries on the person of the husband of the informant due to
which the husband of the informant died at that place. Thereafter all the
accused persons after committing murder of the husband of the informant fled
away.
On the basis of the fardbeyan of Etwari Devi the informant of the
instant case an FIR u/s. 302 IPC was drawn up against Laldeo Munda and four
to five other unknown persons. The accused was not named in the FIR but
during the course of investigation it transpired that the accused Sahdeo Munda
had also participated in the alleged occurrence and due to that the police
concerned after concluding investigation against this appellant submitted
2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
chargesheet against the accused-appellant u/s 302 and 120(B) IPC showing the
accused Laldeo Munda as not sent up in the 2nd column of the chargesheet and
investigation of the case was kept pending. On the basis of chargesheet
cognizance u/s 302, 120(B) IPC was taken against the accused and the case was
transferred to the Court of J.M. 1st Class, Ranchi for commitment vide Order
dated 25.8.1998 as the matter against the accused was exclusively triable by the
court of session. The learned Trial Court framed charges on 03.02.1999 under
section 302/34 of the IPC against this appellant and explained to him in Hindi
to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The learned Trial Court after conducting full-fledged trial passed
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as aforesaid, which
is under challenge.
5. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and the learned
A.P.P. for the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant
6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial
Court has committed grave illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant
because the prosecution has failed miserably to establish the charges against
him in view of the fact that the informant stated that she had seen the entire
occurrence and she knew the appellant since before the occurrence but even
then she did not state the name and identify the appellant and named in her
fardbeyan in the F.I.R. and as such this fact proves that the appellant has falsely
been implicated in this case in a planned manner subsequently. Further, it has
been pointed out that the learned Trial Court did not consider that the appellant
has neither been named in the F.I.R. nor there was any whisper in the F.I.R.
about his involvement in the entire occurrence rather it has been stated that it
was Laldeo Kumar Munda who along with his associates killed the deceased
while it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the present appellant Sahdeo
Munda is full brother of the co-accused Laldeo Kumar Munda and all the key
prosecution witnesses knew the appellant since before the incident but did not
take the name of the appellant. Further, it has been contended on behalf of the
appellant that P.W.-2 who was the nephew of the informant did not tell the
name of this appellant as one of the accused persons and P.W.-3 and P.W.-1
both appeared to be tutored witnesses which has not been taken into
3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
consideration by the learned trial Court.
Further, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned
trial Court ought to have considered that the informant was the resident of
Ranchi and the appellant was the resident of Gumla and the witnesses had
stated that the appellant had never come to the house of the informant and as
such the informant and her daughters have failed to establish as to how did they
know the appellant. Further, it has been argued that the witnesses have deposed
that the appellant had no connection with the daughter of the informant and
have never threatened them and as such there was no motive to commit the
alleged occurrence by the appellant while the case of the prosecution is that
there is motive for the murder of the deceased by the co-accused Laldeo Kumar
Munda who was in love with the daughter (P.W.-1) of the deceased which is an
admitted fact and as such there is no material against this appellant to fasten his
guilt in the commission of the offence. Further, it has also been submitted that
on the date of occurrence which was a dark night but P.W.-1, P.W.3 failed to
state as to how did they identify this appellant in the dark night. It has also been
contended that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered that the alleged
place of occurrence has not been established by the prosecution and the I.O.
never seized the blood-stained soil nor there was any forensic report regarding
blood-stained soil and the inquest report has not been exhibited by the
prosecution and as such the place of occurrence has not been established. The
learned Amicus Curiae in support of her argument has relied upon the
following rulings: "Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported" in (2010) 13 SCC 657 and "Ajeet Singh Constable Vs.
State of U.P. & Anr." reported in 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 4 and in this view of the
matter, it is prayed that judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in
law and fit to be set aside.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State.
07. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant and submitted
that there are three eye witnesses in this case including P.W.-1 Anita Kachhap,
P.W.-3 Anima Kachchap and P.W.-6 Etwari Devi (informant) and also P.W.-2
Belas Kachchap and P.W.-4 Unimal Kujur to whom the incident was disclosed
by the informant immediately after the incident took place on 20.05.1998 and
4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
all of them have supported the case of the prosecution and therefore the learned
Trial Court has rightly appreciated their evidences and convicted the appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and therefore, there is
no legal point to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence and this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
Appraisal & Findings
08. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case including
the trial court records.
09. It is manifest from the record that the prosecution has been able to
examine altogether 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses which are as under:
1. P.W.1- Anita Kachhap (daughter of the deceased)
2. P.W.2- Belas Kachchap
3. P.W.3- Anima Kachchap (daughter of the deceased)
4. P.W.4- Unimal Kujur
5. P.W.5- Santosh Kachchap
6. P.W.6- Etwari Devi (Informant-wife of the deceased)
7. P.W.7- Dr. Ajit Kumar Chaudhary
8. P.W.8- Anil Kumar Dwivedi (I.O.)
10. Apart from the oral witnesses, the prosecution has also marked the
following documents: -
A. Exhibit-1- signature of Etwari Devi in fardbeyan
B. Exhibit-2- postmortem report
11. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence by the
appellant.
12. The genesis of the prosecution case is that the co-accused Laldeo
Kumar Munda and daughter P.W.1 Anita Kachhap of the deceased were in love
with each other. The co-accused Laldeo Kumar Munda wanted to marry with
P.W.-1 but this marriage was not agreeable to the parents of P.W.-1 (P.W.-6 and
deceased). The said co-accused Laldeo Kumar Munda had also been visiting to
the house of the deceased and he also used to write a letter to the daughter (P.W.-
1) of the deceased and recently a letter had been written by the said co-accused
Laldeo Munda to the daughter P.W.-1 of the deceased in which he had asked
P.W.-1 daughter of the deceased to meet him on 19.05.1998 at Jonha Bazar
(market) and it was also written that if she did not come to meet him, he himself
5 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
would come to her house. Therefore, on the next date, 20.05.1998 it has been
stated that the said co-accused Laldeo Kumar Munda came along with his friends
and committed the murder of the deceased who was the father of P.W.-1. In the
F.I.R., the name of this appellant has not been whispered although he was the full
brother of the co-accused Laldeo Kumar Munda who has been only named in the
FIR along with four to five unknown friends although it has come in evidence
that this appellant was known to P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-6 (three eye witnesses
since before the occurrence).
13. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court proceeds to examine the
witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution.
14. P.W.-1-Anita Kachhap had stated that Laldeo Kumar Munda the
co-accused and the appellant Sahdeo Munda had killed her father by knife who
had come along with five to six persons.
In the cross-examination, this P.W.-1 had categorically stated that she was
in love with Laldeo Kumar Munda and she used to receive his letter also. It is
very surprising that when this witness P.W.-1 who is sixteen years old, as evident
from the heading of the deposition, had categorically stated that she knew the
appellant since before the occurrence but neither he has been named in the FIR
nor the role of this appellant has ever been whispered in the said FIR in the
murder of the deceased and as such it is a vital improvement from the earlier
version of the FIR. This witness had also categorically stated that she had no
concern with Sahdeo Munda (Appellant) nor he had given any threatening to her
and surprisingly the cause of the murder has been stated in the FIR i.e. the love
between the P.W.-1 and co-accused Laldeo Munda and therefore by adding name
of this appellant Sahdeo Munda later on in the commission of the offence is
leading to the major change in the circumstances of this case and therefore the
version of this witness is not trustworthy.
15. P.W.-2- Belash Kachchap is also very important witness examined
on behalf of the prosecution and he is the witness to whom the informant-P.W.-6
disclosed about the incident immediately after the occurrence which took place
on 20.05.1998 at about 10 o'clock at night. This witness P.W.-2 categorically
stated that his aunt (P.W.-6-Informant) had not disclosed the name of Sahdeo
Munda (appellant) in the murder of the deceased and this witness P.W.-2 had
stated that his aunt Etwari Devi (P.W.-6) had told him that it was Laldeo Kumar
6 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
Munda of Gumla who had come along with his friends and committed the
murder of the deceased and this appellant is not the friend of Laldeo Kumar
Munda rather he is full brother and thus this witness examined on behalf of the
prosecution has totally falsified the involvement of this appellant in the
commission of the offence and thus his version is very significant as the
statement of P.W.-2 is a part of „Res Gestae‟ and very much relevant for the
purpose of corroboration of version of eye-witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-6
also in view of illustration (j) of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act and he has
not been declared hostile by the prosecution. He has further stated that he had
not seen this appellant Sahdeo Munda in the vehicle, which was seen by him
going from village just after the said occurrence.
16. P.W.-3-Anima Kachchap is the child witness who is said to be
thirteen years old on the date of recording her statement during the trial. She had
stated that Laldeo Kumar Munda wanted to marry with her sister Anita Kachhap-
P.W.-1 but her parents deceased and P.W.-6 (Informant) used to protest this
marriage and co-accused Laldeo Kumar Munda had written a letter that he
wanted to meet with her sister (P.W.1) on 19.05.1998 at Jonha Bazar (market).
She had further stated that on 20.05.1998 Laldeo Kumar Munda and Sahdeo
Munda along with other persons had come to her house and this appellant
Sahdeo Munda and co-accused Laldeo Munda had killed her father by knife. Her
version to add the name of the appellant as an accused later on in the
commission of the offence in this case is also appearing to be tutored and
improved because in the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that
she knew Sahdeo Munda before this occurrence, then it is highly surprising and
improbable that his name has not been given in the FIR nor his role has been
whispered in the commission of the offence. This witness has also stated that co-
accused Laldeo Kumar Munda used to come her house but not Sahdeo Munda
(appellant) nor he had written any letter nor given any threatening to any
member of deceased family (P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-6) and she simply knew
that Sahdeo Munda was the brother of the Laldeo Kumar Munda. Her version
clearly established this fact that this appellant has been named in this case only
because he is the brother of the co-accused Laldeo Kumar Munda and not as a
culprit. This witness has also stated that it was a dark night and she categorically
stated in para 4 of the cross-examination that it was Laldeo Kumar Munda who
7 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
had killed her father and she did not state that it was appellant Sahdeo Munda
who had assaulted her father and thus this witness in the cross-examination has
spoken truth by which it appears that this appellant was not involved in
assaulting the deceased by knife by which he died.
17. P.W.-4-Unimal Kujur is also an important witness who reached
immediately after the incident took place on the date of occurrence i.e. on
20.05.1998 at night and when he went there then the informant (P.W.-6) told this
witness -P.W.-4 that Laldeo Kumar Munda and his friends had killed the
deceased and this appellant is the brother of the co-accused Laldeo Kumar
Munda and his name was never taken by the informant at the first instance when
the occurrence took place and as such statement of this witness is also part of
„Res Gestae‟ and he did not support the name of appellant in the commission of
the offence. This witness has denied that he knew Sahdeo Munda and he has no
personal knowledge about the occurrence.
18. P.W.-5-Santosh Kachchap is also an important witness who had
also visited the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence took place
and P.W.1-Anita Kachhap had told him that Laldeo Kumar Munda and his
friends had killed the deceased and P.W.-1 did not disclose the name of this
appellant-Sahdeo Munda in the murder of the deceased and as such it is found
that the name of this appellant has been taken later on falsely and afterthought
without his involvement in the commission of the offence and version of this
witness is also part of „Res Gestae‟ within meaning of Section 6 of the Indian
Evidence Act and relevant to prove the innocence of appellant.
19. P.W.-6- Etwari Devi who is the informant and eye witness in this
case and it is an admitted case of the prosecution that she has not taken the name
of this appellant in the commission of the offence in the FIR nor she had
whispered about his role in stabbing knife to the deceased although in the FIR
she categorically stated that co-accused Laldeo Kumar Munda had come along
with his friends and killed the deceased by knife. Although she has stated in para
4 of the deposition that she knew the appellant Sahdeo Munda before the
occurrence but she did not take the name in the FIR that appellant had also
assaulted by knife to the deceased and therefore her version in the examination
in chief that Sahdeo Munda along with his friends had assaulted the deceased by
knife is a clear cut improvement in this case which is not believable because
8 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
there was no occasion to conceal the name of this appellant at the first instance
when this appellant was also known to this witness since before the occurrence.
This witness P.W.-6 had admitted in para 4 that her daughter Anita
Kachhap (P.W.-1) was in love with the co-accused Laldeo Kumar Munda and he
used to right letter to her daughter and thus from the version of this witness as
recorded in the FIR and also during the course of the trial taken together it is
found that the cause of murder was that both the co-accused Laldeo Kumar
Munda and P.W.-1 Anita Kachhap were in love with each other and her father
(deceased) and the mother this witness (P.W.-6) used to protest and thus there
was no occasion for this appellant to come along with co-accused Laldeo Kumar
Munda to commit the said offence as his name was never disclosed by anyone of
the eye witnesses in the FIR and later on in the improved version his name has
come only because he is the full brother of the co-accused Laldeo Kumar Munda
who being the main culprit was absconding.
20. Another two witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are
P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 who are Doctor and I.O. respectively namely Dr. Ajit Kumar
Chaudhary who had conducted the post mortem of the deceased and he has
proved the post mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-2 and another
witness P.W.-8 namely Anil Kumar Dwivedi who is I.O. of this case who had
conducted investigation of this case and proved the place of occurrence.
21. In view of the aforesaid analysis and appraisal of the evidences
adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it is well founded that the name of the
appellant has been added in the commission of the offence falsely in a concocted
manner without any proof of his involvement. The motive of the occurrence has
also been disclosed by the prosecution as evident from the statements of P.W.-1,
P.W.-3 and P.W.-6 (eye witnesses) that is the love between the co-accused Laldeo
Kumar Munda and the daughter (P.W.-1) of the deceased. All the three key eye
witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution as P.W.1, P.W.-3
and P.W.-6 knew this appellant since before the occurrence being the full brother
of the co-accused Laldeo Kumar Munda but they did not utter a single word
either in the FIR about the involvement of appellant in the commission of the
offence, nor disclosed the name of this appellant to the PW-2, PW-4 & PW-5
who have come to know about the incident from the eye witnesses PW-1 & PW-
6 immediately after the incident. They stated the involvement of this appellant
9 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
later on in their depositions before the Court during the course of the trial which
is a vital improvement and the entire circumstances of the case is changed
inasmuch as the occurrence has taken place due to protest of the deceased on the
love affairs going on between the P.W.-1 Anita Kachhap and Co-accused Laldeo
Kumar Munda. The name of this appellant Sahdeo Munda is neither narrated to
the PW-2, PW-4 & PW-5 who had shortly after the incident reached to the place
of occurrence and their versions and statements are part of „Res Gestae‟ and very
much relevant within the meaning of Section 6 of the Evidence Act, by which it
is clear cut found that none of key eye witnesses of the prosecution either P.W.-1
or P.W.-3 or P.W.-6 disclosed any role of this appellant and as such the
subsequent versions of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-6 are highly doubtful and fit to
be discarded. No any overt act has been attributed against this appellant in the
FIR and out of blue during the course of the trial, they have started accusing this
appellant only because he is the full brother of the co-accused Laldeo Kumar
Munda. Further, it has been pointed out that Laldeo Kumar Munda was
absconding for a long period of time and attachment order was also passed
against him for want of his appearance in this case on 22.07.1998 and keeping
the investigation pending against him, chargesheet was submitted against this
appellant only on the basis of false and fabricated evidence.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in Naresh v. State of Haryana,
(2023) 10 SCC 134 that the evidence of the eyewitness should be of very sterling
quality and calibre and it should not only instil confidence in the court to accept
the same but it should also be a version of such nature that can be accepted at its
face value. Observation of the Apex Court has been in para 16 which is as under:
16. As noticed hereinabove, the evidence of the eyewitness should be of very sterling
quality and calibre and it should not only instil confidence in the court to accept the
same but it should also be a version of such nature that can be accepted at its face
value. This Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 750] has held : (SCC p. 29, para 22)
"22 [Ed. : Para 22 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.
F.3/Ed.B.J./48/2012 dated 18-8-2012.] . In our considered opinion, the
"sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version
should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such
witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any
hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness
would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the
statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be
the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end,
namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and
ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case
of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in
the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to
10 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it
may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the
factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it.
Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other
supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the
manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion.
The said version should consistently match with the version of every other
witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the
case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in
the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged
against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as
well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a
witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted
by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be
punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core
spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant
materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the
said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the
offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for
holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
As it is found from the aforesaid analysis of this case that P.W.-2, P.W.-4
and P.W.-5 were witnesses to whom the incident was disclosed immediately after
the incident took place. To PW-2 and PW-4 the incident was disclosed by eye
witness PW-1 Anita Kachhap and to PW-5 incident was disclosed by eye witness
P.W.-6 the Informant, when these witnesses P.W.-2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 had reached
the place of occurrence immediately after occurrence. Despite already knowing
the accused/appellant Sahdeo Muda, not telling the name of him to the witnesses
PW-2, PW-4 & PW-5 who came immediately after the incident and even not
mentioning the name in the fardbeyan are speaking a volume against the
truthfulness of the versions of eye-witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-6. The
statements of P.W.-2, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are part of „Res Gestae‟ and very
relevant and admissible in evidence vide Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.
While on later stage mentioning his name in deposition by eye-witnesses
indicates that the eye-witnesses are tutored witnesses and not sterling witnesses.
It is found that eye witnesses PW-1 and P.W.-6 had disclosed about the incident
immediate after the occurrence to P.W.-2, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 but even then, the
name of only Laldeo Kumar Munda was taken by the P.W.-1 and P.W.-6, and the
name of this appellant Sahdeo Munda was never disclosed and thus versions of
these witnesses (P.W.-2, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5) upon which the prosecution has
relied on are very much relevant to falsify the charges levelled against this
appellant Sahdeo Munda. The testimonies of these witnesses including P.W.-2,
PW-4 and P.W.-5 are of great significant in the light of the observation of
11 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
Hon'ble Supreme Court as held in the case of Ajeet Singh Constable Vs. State of
U.P. & Anr. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 4:-
40. In the facts of the present case the solitary testimony from the prosecution
side is of the victim herself but upon a deeper evaluation of the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement given
before the court below, we find that there is improvement in the statements of
the victim after her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the
same day i.e. date of incident and such development or improvement in the
statement of the victim amounts to major improvement, which renders the
testimony of P.W.1/victim unreliable.
41. It is settled law that where the previous statement and the evidence before
the court below are so inconsistent and irreconcilable with each other than both
cannot co-exist, therefore, it can be said that the previous statement contradicts
the witness with the evidence given by him/her before the Court.
42. In the case of State v. Saravanan reported in (2008) 17 SCC 587 the Apex
Court has opined as follows:
"The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found to be not
minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting
their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire
confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and
contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already
recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that the prosecution proved
its case beyond reasonable doubt."
Again, the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta &
Others vs State Of Maharashtra reported in (2010) 13 SCC 657 in
paragraph nos. 30 to 32 has held as follows:
"30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into
consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such
magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor
contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on
trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should
not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Trial
Court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion
about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate Court in normal
course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without
12 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
justifiable reasons.
31. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious
doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make
material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence
acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence.
32. The discrepancies in the evidence of eye-witnesses, if found to be
not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting
their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire
confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and
contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already."
22. Here categorical omission of the name of the appellant from the
fardbeyan (F.I.R. Ext-1) and later on addition his name in the commission of
offence when appellant was well known to the prosecution eye witnesses (P.W.-
1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-6) since before occurrence is a vital omission which changes
the circumstances of the entire case inasmuch as motive has been disclosed by
prosecution in the FIR where it has been uniformly and consistently stated that
co-accused Laldeo Kumar Munda and P.W.-1 were in love with each other and
the deceased and P.W.-6 being the parents of P.W.-1 were protesting the said
love, then the said Laldeo Kumar Munda along with his friends came to the
house of deceased and killed the deceased as evident from contents of fardbeyan
(Ext. 1). Therefore the improved versions of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-6 cast a
sincere doubt about the prosecution case and the contradictions which are vital in
nature in the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-6 vitiate the case of
prosecution and as such guilt of the appellant is not proved beyond reasonable
doubt.
23. In view of the aforesaid findings, it is found that learned trial Court
has committed gross error and did not appreciate the evidences in the right
perspective, hence judgment of conviction dated 26th April 2001 and order of
sentence dated 27th April 2001 passed against the appellant Sahdeo Munda in
Sessions Trial No. 709 of 1998 arising out of Angara P.S. Case No. 26 of 1998,
G.R. Case No.1191 of 1998 by the Court of learned IVth Additional Judicial
Commissioner, Ranchi is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
24. In result, the judgment of conviction dated 26th April 2001 and
order of sentence dated 27th April 2001 passed against this appellant Sahdeo
Munda punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial
13 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
No. 709 of 1998 arising out of Angara P.S. Case No. 26 of 1998, G.R. Case
No.1191 of 1998 by the Court of learned IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi is set aside. Appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bond.
25. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
26. Learned counsel, Ms. Jyoti Nayan, appearing on behalf of the
appellant as an Amicus curiae to assist this Court is entitled for the remuneration
of Rs.5500/- per appearance from the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority
as per the rules and regulation.
27. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Member Secretary,
Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi to do the needful for payment
to the amicus curiae.
28. Let the Trial Court Records along with copy of this Judgment be
transmitted to the court concerned.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant B.
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 25.09.2024
14 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 546 of 2002
