Jharkhand High Court
Madhusudhan Swansi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 April, 2018
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 417 of 2004
.....
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 02.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 05.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2001).
Madhusudhan Swansi
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
For the Appellants :Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State :Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, Additional Public Prosecutor
By Court:-
Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey as well as learned counsel for the State Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 02.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 05.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2001 arising out of Tamar P.S. Case No. 67 of 2000 dated 30.07.2000 consequent G.R. No. 400/2000 whereby the sole appellant has been convicted by the learned Trial Court under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
3. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Jhalo Devi wife of late Dhananjay Swansi recorded by S.I. Shamim Ahmed Khan, Officer-in- Charge, Tamar on 30.07.2000 in the village at about 12.00 hours at Basukande where the informant has alleged that Madhusudhan Swansi (appellant) and her husband Dhananjay Swansi were good friends since long. Yesterday (Saturday) 29.07.2000 at around 5.00 P.M. her husband along with co-villager Budhan Lala Machhua went to search the labourers for sowing crop and did not returned. At around 8.00 P.M in the night, the elder brother of her husband, Sukhdeo Swansi came to her house and disclosed that Madhushudan has killed her husband and the dead body is lying near the mill. Informant went near the mill of Madhusudan and saw the dead body of her husband, which was lying on the ground. In the meantime other villagers reached there. A co-villager boy, 2 Rajmohan Singh Munda whose house is adjacent to the mill has disclosed her and others, that Dhananjay Swansi and his friend Madhusudan Swansi were taking liquor and were singing song. On hearing song, Rajmohan Singh Munda and other children came there. In the meantime, husband of the informant started going towards his house. When Madhushudhan tried to stop him, her husband refused to stop and thereafter Madhusudhan brought a pipe from the mill and assaulted on the head of her husband due to which husband of the informant, sustained injury on the head and fell down and died at the spot.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan police registered Tamar P.S. Case No. 67/2000 dated 30.07.2000 and after investigation submitted chargesheet vide Chargesheet no. 66 dated 23.10.2000 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance of the offence has been taken and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions. Learned Trial Court framed the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 09.08.2001. The appellant has pleaded his innocence and thus appellant has been put for trial.
5. That the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses and also adduced documentary evidence. Post-mortem report as Exhibit-1, signature of Ram Prasad Swansi on the carbon copy of the inquest report as Exhibit 2, signature of Sainath Singh Munda on the carbon copy of the inquest report as Exhibit 2/1, signature of Ram Prasad Swansi on the seizure list as Exhibit 3 and the signature of Sainath Singh Munda on the seizure list as Exhibit 3/1.
6. Dr. Ram Sevak Sahu has been examined as P.W. 1. This witness has stated that on 31.07.2000, while he was posted as a Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, R.M.C.H, Ranchi, has conducted a post- mortem examination of the dead body of Dhananjay Swansi identified by the chowkidar Duryodhan Munda and found following injuries:-
"Lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm x Bone deep on the frontal region of head situated antropostrioly in the mid line with contusion underline scalp and mosaic fracture of frontal bone. There is contusion of brain and presence of subdural blood and blood over both sides of brain.
On Internal Examination.
There was fracture of sternum and left 4 to 7 rib and right rd th 3 to 5 rib. There was no evidence of infiltration of blood and blood clot at the site of fracture."
7. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as pipe of iron, causing death due to head injury.
38. During Cross-examination, this witness has admitted in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination that injury of fracture as mentioned in post-mortem report may be possible due to fall. The doctor has proved the post-mortem report in his writing and signature is marked as Exhibit 1. On recall of this witness on 17.05.2002, this witness has said that injury no. 2 is fracture of ribs and sternum, are the injuries after death i.e. Post-mortem in nature. During cross-examination this witness has said that he cannot say the difference of time between injury on the head and injury relating to fracture of rib and sternum.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ashok Kr. Pandey has submitted that as per the prosecution case, it is alleged by one Rajmohan Singh Munda (P.W. 8) that appellant has given one blow on head but doctor has found two injuries. Although doctor has stated during cross-examination that the fracture/injury which is injury no. 2 may be caused due to fall but during recall doctor has not stated that both injuries were caused at the same time rather the injury no. 2 has been caused after death meaning thereby that some interpolation or subsequent assault has been made upon the body of the deceased. The prosecution has failed to prove or explain, that who has done so and as such the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned counsel for the appellant, has further submitted that non-examination of the Investigating Officer, has caused serious prejudice to the appellant, as they could not cross- examine Investigating Officer, with respect to place of occurrence and with respect to the manner of occurrence and the injury found on the person of the deceased. Thus learned counsel for the appellant, has fairly submitted that on the statement of Rajmohan Singh Munda (P.W. 8), the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant and P.W. 4 Sanatan Swansi who claim himself to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. The learned Trial Court has erred in believing P.W. 8 also as an eye witness to the occurrence as neither P.W. 8 has stated about the presence of P.W. 4 Sanatan Swansi and as such as per the prosecution case, it is only the P.W. 8, who may be considered to be an eye-witness but with proper scrutiny. P.W. 8 has said, that he along with other children went there on hearing song but none of the children have been examined in this case and as such benefit of doubt may be given to the appellant.
10. To this, Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that as per the allegation, one assault was made by the appellant on 4 the head of the deceased, which was fatal in nature and caused death of the Dhananjay Swansi. The learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and as such, no interference is required by this Hon'ble Court.
11. Ram Prasad Swansi, has been examined as P.W. 2, is a hearsay witness who reached to the place of occurrence after hearing the death of Dhananjay Swansi. He is one of the signatory of the inquest report, which has been marked Exhibit 2. He is a hearsay witness, who got information that Madhusudhan Swansi has killed Dhananjay Swansi. This witness has stated, that pipe was seized in his presence and in presence of one Sainath Singh Munda and both are signatory to the seizure list, which has been marked as Exhibit 3 to 3/1 which has been seized on 30.07.2000. This witness has further stated, that initially inquest report was prepared, subsequently seizure list was prepared. This witness has stated, that his house is situated at a distance of 1 k.m. In paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, this witness could not say the name of the person, who disclosed about the murder of Dhananjay Swansi. Prior to the occurrence, he has never seen any quarrel between Dhananjay and Madhushudhan. This witness has stated in Paragraph 9 of his cross- examination, that he could not know, from where the pipe was taken nor he can say the size of the pipe, as the same has not been mentioned in the seizure list. This witness has said, that one injury was found on the head.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is an inquest and seizure witness and being hearsay witness of the occurrence and as such he has not stated anything about complicity of Madhusudhan Swansi in the alleged offence.
Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that this witness is an inquest witness and seizure witness and he has proved the inquest report and the seizure list.
12. Sainath Singh Munda has been examined as P.W. 3. This witness is another inquest witness as well as another seizure witness. He has proved his signature on the inquest report as Exhibit 2/1 and has further stated that on brawl, he went to the village and saw the dead body of Dhananjay having injury on the head.
This witness has stated, that he along with Ram Prasad Swansi went to the place of occurrence, after 15 minutes of the hulla regarding the death of Dhananjay Swansi. This witness has admitted in Paragraph 4 of the cross-
5examination that he is a hearsay witness.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that P.W. 3 is inquest and seizure witness and is a hearsay to the occurrence.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that this witness has also proved the inquest report and the seizure list.
13. Sanatan Swansi has been examined as P.W. 4. This witness has stated, that he was also present at the place of occurrence, where Dhananjay and Madhusudhan were singing song and in the midst of the song, they have some quarrel with respect to the land of ghar-baari and thereafter Madhusudhan Swansi assaulted Dhananjay Swansi by an iron silencer pipe, due to which Dhananjay Swansi died and thereafter Madhushudhan fled away. When villagers came on hulla, then he disclosed about the occurrence, that Madhusudan has killed Dhananjay. This witness is nephew of the deceased and claims himself to be an eye witness to the occurrence.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that this witness is not an eye witness to the occurrence rather he is nephew of the deceased who has subsequently claimed himself to be an eye-witness to falsely implicate Madhushudan. Learned counsel, Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, has further submitted, that even Rajmohan Singh Munda (P.W. 8) or Sukhdeo Swansi (P.W. 5) or Jhalo Devi (P.W. 9) informant of the case, have never said that Sanatan Swansi has disclosed before them, that he has seen the occurrence and non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant as the appellant could not get an opportunity to draw the attention of the Trial Court with respect to the presence of Rajmohan Singh Munda or presence of Sanantan Swansi at the place of occurrence as both of them are claiming to be an eye-witness to the occurrence but not stated about each others presence in their deposition and as such non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to this appellant. If the appellant had given a chance to cross-examine the Investigating Officer, then he ought to have elucidated the material to prove that none of these persons were present at the time of occurrence nor the place of occurrence is near the mill rather it was a baari because the Investigating Officer has not mentioned about the place of occurrence or any blood stained soil was seized from the place of occurrence to established the place of occurrence and as such benefit of doubt may be given to the appellant.
15. Learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Laxmi Murmu has fairly 6 submitted, that since the person is claiming himself to be an eye-witness, there is nothing to disbelieve his statement. He may be nephew of the deceased but that is not a reason for disbelieving the statement of the eye-witness. Learned counsel has fairly submitted that in this case the investigating officer has not been examined.
16. Sukhdeo Swansi, brother of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.
5. He is a hearsay witness. This witness has stated that after the sunset, when darkness was there, his daughter Lalita came near him and disclosed that Madhushudan has killed Dhananjay Swansi by iron pipe. Thereafter this witness along with his daughter Lalita, went near the dead body with water and saw injury on the head but his daughter Lalita has not said about the reason for the assault. This witness has stated that deceased and appellant had friendship. This witness has stated that his daughter, has not disclosed anything except that both were singing song and they were hearing the same. When assault took place, they fled away. This witness has stated, that Madhusudhan has purchased a piece of land from Dhananjay but this witness (P.W.5) has said, that the piece of land belongs to him and the house in which Dhananjay is residing also belongs to him. This witness has said that in the morning, he went to the police station and his statement was recorded, on which he gave his thumb impression, and signature of Ram Prasad Swansi and Sainath Swansi was also there.
This witness has stated in paragraph 16 of his cross-examination that he has stated before the police, that his daughter has disclosed that Dhananjay was assaulted by iron pipe. This witness has stated that because of fall, the cloth of Dhananjay was stained in mud and also in the head. The dead body was lying vertical dorsally.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the First Information Report, Sukhdeo Swansi (P.W. 5) got information from one Rajmohan Singh Munda (P.W. 8) and thereafter this witness has given information to the wife of the deceased, namely Jhalo Devi (P.W.9), but from perusal of the evidence at paragraph 5 and 6, it appears that this witness has some grievance because of the sale of land by Dhananjay Swansi to Madhusudan Swansi and thus this witness has fabricated, a new story in his deposition that he was informed about the occurrence by one Lalita (his daughter). This witness has tried to falsely implicate Madhusudhan as the relationship between Madhusudhan Swansi and Dhananjay Swansi was very 7 cordial. This witness has further stated, that the house in which Dhananjay Swansi was residing belongs to him. So this witness has cooked up a new story to falsely implicate Madhusudhan Swansi, who may not come for rescue of the family of Dhananjay (deceased), during the distress, by sending him jail and as such the evidence of this witness cannot be relied upon.
18. The learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Laxmi Murmu has fairly submitted that this witness has never claimed himself to be an eye-witness to the occurrence rather a hearsay witness, so his conduct cannot be challenged as he could have claimed himself to be an eye-witness to the occurrence, had he has an intention to falsely implicate the appellant.
19. Lalita Kumari @ Nalita Kumari, daughter of Sukhdeo Swansi has been examined as P.W. 6. This witness has stated that she was at her house and Dhananjay and Madhusudan were singing song. She went for hearing the song of her uncle. When her uncle Dhananjay was going to his house, Madhusudhan assaulted him by pipe. This witness has said, that she went to call her father by that time Dhananjay died. During cross-examination, this witness has stated in paragraph 7 of her cross-examination, that house of Dhananjay is situated adjacent to the place of occurrence, where his wife was residing. This witness has stated in paragraph 8 of her cross-examination, that she has denied before the police, that Madhusudhan has asked her to get water for Dhananjay. This witness has stated, that it was a rainy evening. In paragraph 13 of her cross- examination, this witness has also stated, that after Madhusudhan fled away, she went to the machine room and saw Dhananjay (her uncle) was lying there on the floor.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Lalita @ Nalita who has been examined P.W.6 has claimed herself to be an eye witness to the occurrence but her name has not been mentioned in the First Information Report as an eye witness to the occurrence, although the F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of information disclosed by Sukhdeo Swansi, before Jhalo Devi, wife of the deceased and as such statement of Lalita Kumari cannot be accepted as an eye-witness to the occurrence. If Lalita is an eye witness to the occurrence then Rajmohan Singh Munda cannot be an eye-witness to the occurrence as none of them have said about presence of others. The initial F.I.R. says that it is Rajmohan Singh Munda, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence.
21. Learned counsel for the State, has submitted that Rajmohan singh 8 Munda, Sanatan Swansi and Lalita Kumari are also eye witness to the occurrence, may be that only name of Rajmohan Singh Munda has been mentioned in the First Information Report but she could not satisfy this court on query that, if F.I.R. has been lodged on the next day of occurrence then why such discrepancies were found in the First Information Report, which was lodged on the basis of the information of Sukhdeo Swansi to Jhalo Devi and as such this court is not satisfied with the submission given by the Additional Public Prosecutor.
22. Jodhan Lal Singh Munda, has been examined as P.W. 7. This witness is a hearsay witness. Rajmohan Singh Munda has been examined as P.W.8. This witness is an eye-witness to the occurrence, as per the First Information Report and during examination-in-Chief, he has stated that he went to hear the song which was sung, by Madhusudhan and Dhananjay and he was alone there. No other person was present there. This witness has stated that it is Madhusudhan who has assaulted on the head of the Dhananjay due to which he died. This witness has stated, during cross-examination that he has stated before the police that Dhananjay and Madhusudhan were singing song inside the machine room where he was also hearing the song. This witness has stated in paragraph 8 of his cross-examination, that the dead body was lying outside the machine room in the west and a dhibri was burning in the machine room.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that Sanatan Swansi (P.W. 4) and Lalita Kumari (P.W. 6) both have claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence but they have not stated about the presence of Rajmohan Singh Munda (P.W. 8) at the place of occurrence and Rajmohan Singh Munda is also not saying about the presence of Sanatan Swansi and Lalita Kumari at the place of occurrence and as such the prosecution case, which was lodged by the wife of deceased was admittedly, an hearsay witness, on the basis of information given by Sukhdeo Swansi, who got information by Rajmohan Singh Munda and Rajmohan Singh Munda claims, that he was the only one present at the place of occurrence, cannot be accepted. In view of such contradictions even in the evidence of P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 and as such in absence of examination of the Investigating Officer, serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant, as the appellant could not get an opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer about presence of eye-witness at the place of occurrence. Furthermore, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant, as he could not draw the attention of 9 the court, towards the place of occurrence, whether it was inside the machine room or outside the machine room towards the west and as such the appellant cannot be convicted on said sketchy evidence.
24. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that all three persons are eye witnesses to the occurrence and if they are not saying about presence of others, no doubt about the genuineness of their statement can be taken because of none of them have mentioned about others, in their statement. The defence has not discarded their evidence on the basis of cross-examination. Non- examination of the Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to the appellant as these three eye witnesses have been examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve their testomonies.
25. Jhalo Devi has been examined as P.W. 9. Admittedly she is a hearsay witness and on the basis of information given by Sukhdeo Swansi, brother of the deceased. This witness being wife of the deceased and has stated that Lalita Kumari came to her house and disclosed that Madhusudhan Swansi has assaulted Dhananjay by pipe on the head due to which he died. This witness has stated that her husband and the appellant were good friends. This witness has not stated that Rajmohan Singh Munda has disclosed before her that it was Madhusudhan Swansi who has killed her husband although in the First Information Report, she has categorically stated that Sukhdeo Swansi came before her and said that he was informed by Rajmohan Singh Munda that his brother has been killed by Madhusuhan Swansi rather this witness has deposed in the Court that Lalita has informed her, about the occurrence but the name of Lalita has not been mentioned in the First Information Report, which is lodged next day of the occurrence.
26. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the genesis of the First Information Report is itself doubtful from the perusal of the evidence of P.W.9 Jhalo Devi and such vital contradiction in the First Information Report and the deposition of P.W. 9 goes to the root of the prosecution case. If Jhalo Devi has heard it from Lalita Kumari, she could have said before the police which would have been recorded in the First Information Report but it seems that Jhalo Devi is not consistent with her own statement as made in the First Information Report and in the deposition as P.W.9 and as such the appellant may be granted benefit of doubt for such vital discrepancies.
27. Learned counsel for the State, Laxmi Murmu, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted, that Jhalo Devi has never claimed herself to be an 10 eye witness rather she is a hearsay witness. Her statement is not going to be affected, either she has heard the same from Lalita or from Rajmohan Singh Munda. She never claims herself to be an eye-witness to the occurrence, as such there is no vital discrepancies in the evidence of the informant.
28. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of P.W.9 is contrary to the First Information Report and the entire case as per the First Information Report is based upon the statement of Rajmohan singh Munda (P.W. 8), who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, as per the fardbeyan but, during trial, three witnesses have claimed themselves to be an eye witnesses to the occurrence. Sanatan Swansi (P.W. 4), Lalita Kumari (P.W. 6) and Rajmohan Singh Munda (P.W. 8) but none of the eye-witnesses have said about the presence of other witnesses and as such the presence of eye-witness to the occurrence is itself doubtful in this case and non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant as the appellant has not been provided opportunity to elucidate anything with respect to the presence of eye witness.
29. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey has further submitted, that the place of occurrence has also not been proved. As per Lalita Kumari (P.W.6), it is inside the machine room, as per P.W.8, Raj Mohan Singh it is at the western side, outside the machine room and as such it is very difficult to establish the place of occurrence. Furthermore, some witnesses have said that mud was there in the cloth and head of the deceased. The eye witnesses have never said, that the person fell on the mud and as such presence of eye-witness is doubtful. The learned counsel has further submitted that non- examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice in these types of cases, where the case has been instituted on the next date and one by one eye-witnesses are coming to the court. The Investigating Officer ought to have been examined in such type of cases, where the eye witnesses are coming subsequently. If the evidence of P.W. 8 is relied upon then presence of Sanatan Swansi (P.W. 4) and Lalita Kumari (P.W. 6) is unacceptable but since P.W. 9 Jhalo Devi, informant of the case has deposed in the court, that she was informed by Lalita Kumari, who is her niece. Presence of Sanatan Swansi (P.W. 4) is disputed and as such the presence of these two persons cannot be accepted, if the evidence of P.W. 9 is compared with the F.I.R., then the presence of Lalita Kumari (P.W. 6) and Sanatan Swansi (P.W. 4) is not proved because in fardbeyan she has categorically stated that Rajmohan Singh Munda 11 (P.W. 8) has informed Sukhdeo Swansi (P.W.5), who informed her about death of her husband and as such this case suffers from serious infirmity, so far eye witnesses are concerned and so far as non-examination of the investigating officer is concerned. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in the post-mortem report, two injuries were found and during cross-examination, the doctor has said, that the second injury is caused after death. The prosecution has failed to establish that how second injury i.e. fracture of left and right side of the rib have been caused in the dead body and non-examination of the Investigating Officer goes to the root of the case, that the person might have died in different way and for oblique motive his own friend has been implicated by the brother so that no one should come to the rescue of the wife of the deceased at the distress.
On the above fact the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the case is fit where benefit of doubt may be granted in favour of the appellant.
30. Learned counsel for the State Mrs. Laxmi Murmu has submitted, that it is a proved case where eye witness has supported the prosecution case and non-examination of the Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. She has further submitted, that doctor has also said, that the injury no. 1 caused on the head of the deceased is caused because of a hard object like iron rod and as such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence warrants no interference by this Hon'ble Court.
31. After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence and materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant has some force. It is true that non- examination of Investigating officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant, as there are three eye-witnesses, who are not taking the name of each other in their deposition as an eye-witness and as such each eye-witness is challenging the presence of another eye-witness. Apart from that, the name of Rajmohan Singh Munda, which has figured in the First Information Report, as an eye-witness to the occurrence is also doubtful because the informant Jhalo Devi. P.W. 9, during her cross-examination, has stated that she got information about the death of her husband through her niece Lalita Kumari and Sukhdeo Swansi has also said the same in her deposition, as such, the argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant, has substance and this Court is of the opinion that non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious 12 prejudice to the appellant. Further this court has found that deceased has sustained two injuries, injury one on the head and other on the ribs.
The second injury has not been explained by any of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. A case where Investigating Officer has not been examined and three eye-witnesses are separately coming to the court not consistent with each other and none of the eye witness is explaining the second injury, then this court is of the opinion that it is not a true version of the prosecution case. From record, it appears that Sukhdeo Swansi (P.W. 5) has gone to the police station in the night itself and his statement was recorded in presence of two persons namely Ram Prasad Singh and Sainath Singh Munda but the said First Information Report has not been brought on record. The prosecution has not explained anything about non-production of the said fardbeyan and as such the subsequent fardbeyan which was recorded on the basis of the statement of Jhalo Devi, seems to be a second fardbeyan and that is the reason that there is such vital contradiction and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses.
32. Considering all these above facts, benefit of doubt is granted to the appellant by setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 02.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 05.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2001 arising out of Tamar P.S. Case No. 67 of 2000 dated 30.07.2000 consequent G.R. No. 400/2000 is hereby set-aside. The appellant Madhusudhan Swansi is acquitted of charge under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant who is on bail is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
37. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
38. Let the record be sent to the lower court concerned.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 23.04.2018 Pallavi/