AMAR LAL Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE appellant, Amar Lal, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Accused') is languishing in jail for the last 13 years being in custody from the date of his initial arrest, preference has been given to the instant appeal for its final consideration. He has suffered conviction for the charge of section 302 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. for allegedly committing murder of one Ganga Rabidas, father of P.W. Dhaneshwar Ram, the first informant. The sentence imposed upon him is life imprisonment under section 302 I.P.C. and 7 years under section 201 IPC. Both sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution primarily hinges upon circumstantial evidence as the three eye -witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P.Ws. Ketki Kumari, Jaswa Kamin and Urmila Kumari, have been declared hostile. The occurrence had allegedly taken place in front of the house of P.W. Jaswa Kamin with whom the deceased was staying after he lost his wife as is projected in the First Information Report. P.Ws. Ketki Kumari and Urmila Kumari are daughters of Jaswa Kamin. Weapon of offence is also shown to have been recovered near the place of occurrence, but is not pursuant to the disclosure statement suffered by the accused. Prosecution has also made an attempt to prove the charge against the accused on the basis of extra judicial confession from the statements of P.Ws. Tejo Rabidas, Baldeo Lohar, Dhaneshwar Rabidas (brother -in -law of the deceased) and Dhaneshwar Ram, the first informant. These are the main planks available with the prosecution to establish its case against the accused.

(3.) WHILE strengthening his arguments, Mr. Roy submitted that if one looks at the F.I.R., the time of lodging of F.I.R. is shown at 10.30 am and perusal of the first -column of inquest report prepared by the Investigating Officer indicates the time as 8.00 a.m. Learned counsel submitted that even the number of F.I.R. is also mentioned and this indicates that the police had actually visited the spot, first prepared certain documents and then registered the F.I.R. According to learned counsel, not only that, if one looks at the time of alleged recovery of knife, it is indicated as 8.45 a.m., i.e. much prior to lodging of formal FIR and all these flaws turn out to be fatal to the prosecution.