NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the criminal revision applications were heard on the same date and there being common question of law involved, are disposed of by this common judgment. Cr. Revision No. 211 of 2003 The petitioner, Narendra Kumar has challenged the judgment dated 3rd May, 2003 passed by Sri V. N. Sahu, learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in S.T. No. 432 of 1994, whereby and whereunder the Court-below acquitted the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 for the offence u/S. 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C.

(2.) The case of prosecution, as per informant, Narendra Kumar (PW-4) was that on 21st October, 1993 at 8 P.M., the accused (O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 herein) came to his place and asked his brother, Rajesh Mahto alias Roshan Mahto (deceased) to accompany them to Dharana Sthal. His brother went with them but did not return till next date morning (22nd October, 1993). The informant went to the house of the accused persons and enquired about his brother but they replied that his brother has not accompanied them. He (Informant), thereafter, went to Dharana Sthal and when enquired from other persons, came to know that the accused persons had reached Dharana Sthal on the earlier day at about 11 P.M. but they were in drunken condition and tensed. Informant, thereafter, along with other villagers went to search his brother, at about 9 A.M. on 22nd October, 1993, he found the dead-body of his brother near the cooling pond No. 1 under bridge No. 24. He (informant) saw bleeding injury on the head and abrasions on other parts of the body of the deceased. The informant alleged that the accused persons (O.P. Nos. 2 to 5) ordered his brother and concealed the dead body near the cooling pond. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses, namely, PW-1, Gita Devi, mother of the deceased; PW-2, Arjun Mahato: PW-3, Murlidhar Goswami, PW-4, Narendra Kumar (Informant); PW-5, Praful Kumar Mahato, a seizure list witness; PW-6, Kashi Nath Mahto, PW-7, Ram Eqbal Yadav (second Investigation Officer) and PW-8, Dr. Dhirendra Kumar Singh. PW-6, Kashi Nath Mahto was declared hostile by the prosecution; PW-5, Praful Kumar Mahato was a formal seizure list witness. PW-7, Ram Eqbal Yadav, Inspector of Police had not conducted the investigation but simply submitted charge-sheet. The I.O. was not examined. Admittedly, PW-8, Dr. Dhirendra Kumar Singh had not conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. One Dr. Sataynarayan Lai had conducted the postmortem but he was not produced as witness.

(3.) The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidences of the witnesses, came to a conclusion that the prosecution though established that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons at about 8 P.M. on 21st October, 1993 while they jointly left for Dharana Sthal from his house, it could not establish other chain of circumstances including the motive of the accused persons behind the alleged occurrence. The trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused persons are guilty for the offences u/S. 302/201/34 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt and gave benefit of doubt in their favour. Cr. Revision No. 273 of 2003