KARU SAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision application is filed by the petitioner (original informant) being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2000 whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 herein for the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with regard to Deoghar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 46 of 2000.

(2.) According to the Fardbeyan, on 15.1.2000 the informant (petitioner) had gone to Tapoban Mela and when he returned back to his house at 4.00 p.m., his mother informed him with regard to altercation with the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 and thereafter his brother Sanjay Sah (since deceased) had gone for evening walk and the informant was going towards Tower Chouk where he heard that a boy was murdered near the house of the accused Siddheshwar Keshri (since dead) and on reaching there the informant identified the dead body of his brother Sanjay Sah. It was alleged that there was land dispute between the families of the informant and his uncle since last 7-8 years. As per Fardbeyan, there was some altercation held between the informant and the opposite parties for which the informant gave his fardbeyan to the police on the spot at 18.45 hours on 15.1.2000 detailing the facts and suspecting that the accused Siddheshwar Keshri, Lakshmi Sah, the uncle of the informant, and the cousins of the informant namely Bikram Sah and Shivcharan Sah had conspired and had got his brother Sanjay Sah murdered due to the aforementioned enmity between them. On the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant, Deoghar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2000 was registered and investigation of the case was carried out. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet in this case. After commitment of the case to the court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons on 28.6.2000 and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, the accused persons were put on trial. During the trial accused Siddheshwar Keshri died and the trial was dropped against him vide order dated 17.4.200

(3.) In course of trial the prosecution examined 8 witnesses including the informant, I.O. and the Doctor. The prosecution had brought certain documents on record which Were marked exhibits. The statement of the accused persons was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they have denied the accusation as also the circumstances appearing against them in evidences brought on record by the prosecution.