Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) WHEN the matter is called out, earlier appointed Amicus Curiae, Shri Sanjay Kumar Chaturvedy, is absent. He was appointed as an Advocate vide order dated 21.1.2003. This is a final hearing of this Criminal Appeal. We have appointed Smt. Priya Shrestha, Advocate, who is in the panel of Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority as Amicus Curiae. She has argued out the case at length.
(2.) THE present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Vth Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 465 of 2000. This appellant has been convicted for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for causing murder of Turiya Minz vide order dated 20/21st, August, 2002. The case of the prosecution is that: - On 18.04.2000 at 17.15 hrs i.e. 5.15 P.M. the informant Puso Orain (P.W. -2) gave her fardbeyan to police at Emergency Gate of R.M.C.H., that her elder brother Turiya Minz (deceased aged about 60 years old had returned to his home at 10.30 A.M. after roaming. The informant brother and Johan Minz have common courtyard before their house. The informant further alleged that when Turiya Minz returned to his house, he told to his cousin Johan Minz that he never took care of him and he always bothered about his children only and when he asked cane bamboos from the Johan Minz then he refused. Thereafter there was a scuffle between informant brother and Johan Minz and then Johan Minz ran to his house and came with Axe (Tangi) and to kill informant brother, hit in his head and neck, thrice with Axe (Tangi) and due to injury, informant brother fall down and at that time it was 11:30 A.M. Thereafter informant took her brother to her house and then to Bero Hospital for his treatment and from there Doctor referred him to R.M.C.H., Ranchi for better treatment and informant took her brother to R.M.C.H. but at the emergency gate of R.M.C.H. her brother died. The informant further alleged that the incident occurred due to the demand of bamboos. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution:
(3.) IT is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there are major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the deposition of the witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed/set aside. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there are several eye witnesses of the incident, as per the Paragraph No. 17 of the depositions given by P.W. -2, who are Birsa, Parcham and Kali, but they have not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, the crucial independent witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the so called eye witnesses of the incident are the relatives of the deceased. The names of P.W. -3 and P.W. -4 have not been mentioned and referred in the F.I.R. by the informant (P.W. -2). Moreover, there are several inconsistencies between ocular evidence and the medical evidence. As per the so called eye witnesses, there are maximum three blows given by the appellant upon the deceased, whereas, looking to the medical evidence given by the P.W. -1, Dr. Saroj Kumar, there are several injuries upon the body of the deceased. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court, and therefore, the so called witnesses examined by the prosecution are not trustworthy and unreliable. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the so called Seizure List of the weapon as well as the blood stained earth are also not proved by the prosecution looking to the depositions given by the P.W. -9. There is no F.S.L. Report of the so called blood stained weapon and blood stained earth on the record of the learned trial court. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and the prosecution has failed to prove the offence committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside.;