Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 86 of 2001
---
Against the judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2001 and order of
sentence dated 19.1.2001 passed by Shri Hari Bhushan Prasad
Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 156
of 1998.
Robin Baa ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---
For the Appellant : M/s. Amarendra Kumar, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, A.P.P.
---
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY
---
R. K. MERATHIA, &
D. N. UPADHYAY, JJ This appeal has been filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 18.01.2001 and sentence dated 19.01.2001 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 156 of 1998 by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Simdega convicting the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. and
sentencing him to undergo R. I. for life.
2. The prosecution case in short is as follows. A written
report (Ext. 1) was lodged by Prakash Lakra (P. W. 5) that on 9.6.1997
at about 7:00 P.M., Sunil Lakra (P. W. 8) and William Lakra (P. W. 9)
came to his house and informed him that the appellant fell down his
brother Habil Lakra (the deceased) near the house of Matius Lakra (P.
W. 1). P. W. 8 & 9 wanted to intervene, but the appellant threatened
them at the point of dagger on which they fled and informed the
informant about the occurrence. To know the incident, as described by
P. W. 8 & 9, the informant with others went there and saw Habil Lakra
in injured condition. They took him to the hospital, where he died
during treatment. The motive of occurrence is said to be enmity
continuing from before.
3. Mr. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing as
Amicus Curiae submits as follows. P. W. 8 and P. W. 9 are witnesses
with regard to the initial place of occurrence, but prosecution has not
-2-
been able to prove how the deceased was found in injured condition at
about 100 meters away therefrom. It has also not been proved how
the fatal injury on head – incised wound causing fracture – was
possible by dagger alleged to be with the appellant. The post mortem
report was proved by another doctor, than the doctor who conducted
the post mortem. Otherwise, he could be asked whether the fatal
injuries were possible by dagger or not. Out of the two eye-witnesses,
one eye-witness P. W. 9 William Lakra has become hostile. He lastly
submitted that in any event, the appellant has remained in jail for about
14 years by now.
4. Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel for the State
supported the impugned judgment.
5. We find force in the submissions of Mr. Amarendra Kumar
that the prosecution has not proved as to how the injured – the
deceased was found at a distance of about 100 meters from the initial-
first place of occurrence about which P. W. 8 & 9 informed P. W. 5.
According to the prosecution, the appellant was having a dagger in his
hand. But, it could not be proved as to how the two incised fracture
injuries on head, which were found fatal, could be caused by dagger.
The post mortem report was proved by another doctor. The
prosecution has also not asked the doctor as to whether such injuries
were possible by dagger. Had the doctor who conducted the post
mortem been examined by the prosecution, it could be made clear
whether such fatal injuries were possible by dagger or not. One of the
two eye-witnesses have become hostile. Moreover, the eye-witnesses
are only to the extent that the appellant was assaulting the deceased
with fists and slaps at the first place of occurrence. There is no
evidence to show how the deceased reached at the second place at
about 100 meters away where he was found injured. It has come in
evidence that there are houses in between the two places of
occurrence, but no witness has been examined to throw light on the
actual manner of occurrence.
Thus, in our opinion, the appellant deserves benefit of
doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgement of conviction and order
of sentence is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the
-3-
charges and is directed to be set free, if not wanted in any other
criminal case. This appeal thus stands allowed.
(R. K. Merathia, J.)
(D. N. Upadhyay, J)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 29th day of June 2011.
R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3.