BALBHADRA @ BHADRO GAGRAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Balbhadra @ Bhadro Gagrai @ Balbhadra Gagrai, aged about 27 years, after suffering conviction for the charge of Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment of learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum (Chaibasa) dated 13 -15.04.2015 is now praying for suspension of substantive sentence slapped upon him. Heard Mr. Milan Kumar Dey, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel for the State. With the assistance rendered by learned senior counsel, some material evidence available from trial court records has also been read over to the Court.

(2.) Learned senior counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution is virtually hinging upon circumstantial evidence, but the prosecution agency, after the recovery of the dead body of the deceased on 04.04.2011, in order to give a colourful version, imported one Roya @ Soya Sinku (P.W.11) to be an eye -witness to the occurrence, whose statement was recorded by the Police on 05.04.2011

(3.) The other piece of evidence, according to learned senior counsel, collected by the prosecution during the investigation is recovery of clothes of the deceased at the instance of the appellant whose arrest is shown on 10.05.2011 and while he was being interrogated by the investigating agency, he pointed out the place of concealment of the clothes of the deceased. Learned senior counsel submitted that even this plank of the evidence falls on the ground as one of the witnesses to the inquest proceedings has categorically stated when examined on oath during trial that the clothes of the deceased were lying near the dead body of the deceased half buried in the sand and rest exposed. Learned counsel submitted that it appears that the recovery of clothes at the instance of the appellant is a planted piece of evidence concocted by the prosecution in order to complete the main planks of the evidence. On the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect projected before the Court, learned senior counsel submitted that the prosecution, in fact, is not able to prove the charge of Section 302 IPC qua the accused beyond any shadow of doubt which aspect has not been considered by the learned trial court in the right perspective.