Jharkhand High Court
Latif Nadaf Son Of Late Badde Nadaf vs The State Of Bihar ..... Opp. Party on 1 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:21416-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
--------
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 3 of 1997(DB)
------
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 12.12.1996 and
order of sentence dated 13.12.1996, passed by learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No.33 of
1981/23 of 1995)
------
1.Latif Nadaf son of Late Badde Nadaf
2.Ibrahim Nadaf son of Chhaku Nadaf
3.Pandu Ray son of Late Jokhu Ray
4.Lakhinder Rai son of Late Agnu Rai
All of village: -Ghat Gamhariya. All of police Station: -
Mahgama, District-Godda.
.... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar ..... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
.....
For the Appellants : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
.....
C.A.V. on 04/07/2025 Pronounced on 01/08/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
1. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to mention herein that out of the ten convicts, as per the impugned judgment, eight appellants preferred Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 3 of 1997 whereas two appellants, namely, Kedar Rai and Sk. Ainudi preferred Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 40 of 1997. Both the appeals were tagged together since they arise out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
2. It appears from order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that a report was submitted by the Officer-in-Charge, Mahagama Police Station dated 24.02.2019 regarding the status of the appellants in the present appeal [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 3 of 1997] and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 40 of 1997, which was tagged together. As per report supported by the certificates of the Mukhiya the appellant no. 1 Chhaku Nadaf, son of late Astuli Nadaf, appellant no. 5 Pagal Ray, son of late Kishan Rai, appellant no. 6 Basant Sikdar, son of late Sayu @ Sanu Sikdar and appellant no. 7 Sanu Sikdar, son of late Bishu Sikdar so far Cr. Appeal No. 3/1997 (DB) is concerned have died during pendency of the appeal. No leave has been sought by any of the legal heirs/close relatives of the deceased appellants in terms of section 394 of the Cr. PC., as such, Cr. Appeal No. 3/1997 (DB) abates as against these appellants. However, it survives against the remaining four appellants i.e. appellant no. 2 Latif Nadaf, appellant no. 3 Ibrahim Nadaf, appellant no. 4 Pandu Ray and appellant no. 8 Lakhindar Rai.
3. The report further reveals that appellant no. 1 Kedar Rai, son of late Dhankush Rai and appellant no. 2 Sk. Ainudi 2 Rai, son of late Sk. Aktar in Cr. Appeal No. 40/1997 (DB) have died during pendency of this appeal. No leave has been sought by any of the legal heirs/close relatives of the deceased appellants in terms of section 394 of the Cr. PC. As such, Cr. Appeal No. 40/1997 (DB) stands abated.
4. For ready reference, order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench is quoted as under:
"A report has been submitted by the Officer-in-Charge, Mahagama Police Station dated 24.02.2019 regarding the status of the appellants in both the appeals, whether they are dead or alive. Enclosed to his report are certificates of the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat-Lahathi and Gram Panchayat-Ghat Gamhariya, District Godda dated 23.02.2019 describing the status of the appellants in the respective appeals. Perusal of the report reveals that the appellant no. 1 Chhaku Nadaf, son of late Astuli Nadaf, appellant no. 5 Pagal Ray, son of late Kishan Rai, appellant no. 6 Basant Sikdar, son of late Sayu @ Sanu Sikdar and appellant no. 7 Sanu Sikdar, son of late Bishu Sikdar in Cr. Appeal No. 3/1997 (DB) have died during pendency of the appeal. No leave has been sought by any legal heir / close relative of the deceased appellants in terms of section 394 of the Cr. PC. As such, Cr. Appeal No. 3/1997 (DB) abates as against these appellants. However, it survives against the remaining appellants i.e. appellant no. 2 Latif Nadaf, appellant no. 3 Ibrahim Nadaf, appellant no. 4 Pandu Ray and appellant no. 8 Lakhindar Rai.
2.The report further reveals that appellant no. 1 Kedar Rai, son of late Dhankush Rai and appellant no. 2 Sk. Ainudi Rai, son of late Sk. Aktar in Cr. Appeal No. 40/1997 (DB) have died during pendency of this appeal. No leave has been sought by any legal heir / close relative of the 3 deceased appellants in terms of section 394 of the Cr. PC. As such, Cr. Appeal No. 40/1997 (DB) stands abated.
3.Surviving appeal Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 3/1997 is passed over for the day."
Prayer:
5. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment of conviction dated 12.12.1996 and order of sentence dated 13.12.1996, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No.33 of 1981/23 of 1995, by which the appellants have been convicted under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Further Appellant Pandu Ray was also convicted under section 324 IPC and remaining three appellants were convicted under 324/149 IPC and sentenced to 3 years. The appellants Latif Nadaf and Ibrahim Nadaf have also been convicted under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. Appellants Lakhindra Rai and Pandu Ray have been convicted under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The appellants Latif Nadaf and Ibrahim Nadaf have been further convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 4 years. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Prosecution Case:
6. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case.
7. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the fardbeyan of informant P.W-4 Md. Alimuddin S/o Sk.Jar Ali given to Mahgama Police on 21.11.1977 is that on the date of report at 6 A.M. his labourer Sk.Failu reported that the accused Baddu Nadaf, Chhaku Nadaf, Latif Nadaf, Hussaini Nadaf and Ibrahim Nadaf along with females were reaping paddy crops and were removing the same.
At this he, his brother named Ibrahim, Sk.Kausar s/o Sk. Akabar, Sk.Kausar S/o Sk.Tannu went to the field, bearing plot No.159. As soon as they reached to the field, they saw accused persons harvesting the paddy crops. They asked not to harvest. At this there began altercation. Then Chhaku Nadaf and Baddu Nadaf exhorted that they should be killed. At this the informant and the members of his associates fled away. Those above named accused along with Dular Rai armed with Garasa; Memar Rai armed with bow and arrows, Kantrol Rai armed with Lathi, Sk. Ainudi armed with bow and 5 arrows, Basant Sikdar armed with Barchha, Samu Sikdar armed with lathi, Kedar Rai armed with bow and arrows, Pandu Rai armed with bow and arrows, Pagal Rai armed with lathi, chased the informant and the persons of his association.
8. The informant and persons of his association fled to rescue their lives and they entered into the house of Mohammad Nadaf s/o Kailu Nadaf of village Sarawan. All the accused persons encircled the house. Accused Sk. Ainudi and Kedar Rai broke open the back wall and shot two arrows hitting his brother named Ibrahim on his eye and cheek. Pandu Rai removed roof material and shot the arrow hitting Sk. Kausar on his arm. Ibrahim fell down and seeing him falling of the accused persons fled away. On the alarm raised Sk.Basir, Sk.Riyasat, Sk. Ajabul, Sk.Maqubool and others came to saw the occurrence. Informant further stated that accused persons harvested and removed paddy from the land of one bigha. On the above allegation the case has been instituted.
9. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, First Information Report was registered. After completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the accused and cognizance of the offence was taken against the aforesaid accused persons, which being exclusively 6 triable by court of Sessions, case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
10. The charge was framed under Sections 302, 302/149, 324, 324/149, 379, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
11. During trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses out of whom P.W- 4 Md. Alimuddin, is the informant of the case;P.W-1 is Sk. Ishak Ali, who is the brother of the informant;P.W-2 is Sk. Basheer Ali; P.W-3 is Sk. Kausar s/o Sk.Akbar; P.W-5 is Sk.Kausar S/o Sk. Ajabul @ Tannu; P.W.6 is Sk.Failu; P.W. 7 is Dr. Surendra Narayan Singh, who had treated the injured Sk. Kausar S/o Sk.Ajabul; P.W.8- Dr. Haidar Imam Ansari and he had conducted P.M. examination on the dead body of Sk. Ibrahim; PW-9 Barameshwar Prasad, is the investigating officer of the case and P.W-10 is A.S.I. Harendra Singh.
12. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of the accused persons and found the charges levelled against the appellants proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellants had been found guilty and convicted, as stated above, which is the subject matter of instant appeal.
7Submission on behalf of appellants:
13. Mrs. Rakhi Rani, learned Amicus appearing for the surviving appellants has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the following grounds:
I. Prosecution has miserably failed in proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants.
II. Submission has been made if the testimonies of the witnesses will be taken into consideration it would be evident that the judgment of conviction suffers from serious infirmities.
III. Further submission has been made that it is alleged that all the accused persons encircled the house. Accused Sk. Ainudi and Kedar Rai broke opened the back wall and shot two arrows hitting his brother named Ibrahim on his eye and cheek, who died during treatment in the hospital. Pandu Rai removed roof material and shot the arrow hitting Sk.
Kausar on his arm. Thus, it is apparent that main allegation is against the appellants, Sk. Ainudi and Kedar Rai, who are appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 40 of 1997 and since dead, as such the appeal has already been abated against them.8
IV. Submission has been made that though the other appellants has been convicted by taking aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code but there is no direct complicity to attract the ingredient of Section 149 IPC, as such Section 149 IPC will not be applicable so far other appellants are concerned.
V. Further, the investigation in the case at hand has been done in a haphazardly manner and there are many discrepancies and inconsistency in the testimony of the witnesses in particular the testimony of the informant which is fatal to the prosecution case. VI. Further, whatever has been deposed by the prosecution witnesses the same has not been stated before investigating Officer at the time of recording of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
VII. Submission has been made that the testimony of the I.O also castes doubt upon the prosecution version since he has deposed in his testimony that the deceased Sk. Ibrahim was conscious at the time of recording statement. But if such statement will be taken into consideration by going through the testimony of doctor, it would be evident that the doctor by considering the nature of injury which the deceased has sustained in the eye since the same touched the internal part of the brain, hence, there is every 9 likelihood of such injury lead the patient to go on comma immediately. The testimony of the doctor so far it relates to Sk. Ibrahim, the deceased, was in unconscious state, up-to the time of recording statement deceased, therefore, there is vital contradiction in the statement of the witnesses in particular, I.O., Doctor and alleged eye-witnesses. VIII. The prosecution version is further doubtful since one witness, Sk. Kausar [P.W. 5] has also said to have sustained injury in his arm, who has been treated by the doctor P.W. 7, who has deposed in course of trial that he examined Sk. Kausar on 24.11.1997 in the morning and the injury has been informed to be 12 hours prior to treating said Sk. Kausar; meaning thereby the said Kausar was injured on 23.11.1997 and not on 21.11.1977 while as per the prosecution version the deceased was assaulted on 21.11.1977 in the morning. This shows wider contradiction in the injury which has been said to be sustained to the Md. Kausar as that of the injury sustained by the deceased Sk. Ibrahim.
IX. The falsity of prosecution version is further apparent on the ground that the appellants have been said to be over the roof made of soil tiles [Khaprail] and after removing the said soil tiles the assault from 10 the arrows have been given. Submission has been made that it is quite unexpectable that the four and five people will go on the top of the soil roof [Khaprial] and soil roof will not break.
X. The question of land dispute has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment of conviction, which is admitted one. Further, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witness, excluding the official witness i.e., the doctor or the Investigating officer, and even the testimony of official witnesses i.e., the doctor and the Investigating Officer is full of contradiction if compared to testimony of eye witnesses.
XI. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as to now most of the appellants are more than 75 years old.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants, in the backdrop of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence since is not based upon cogent evidence and as such it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt.
Submission of the learned APP for the state and the informant:
11
15. Per Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State as also learned counsel for the informant has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence taking the ground that the impugned judgment has been passed based upon the testimony of witnesses who have supported the prosecution version.
16. Submission has been made that all the eye witnesses including the informant, has deposed that the informant along with other three, on being chased by the accused persons, fled from the farm and entered into the house of Akalu Nadaf of village Sarawan and closed the door from inside. The culprits began to break the wall of the Western side and removed tiles of the roof. After breaking the wall from Western side Sk. Ainudi shot an arrow which hit Ibrahim on his left eye. Kedar Rai shot another arrow which hit Ibrahim on his left cheek. He fell there and Pandu Rai shot an arrow after making hole in the room which hit Kausar. In course of treatment the deceased Ibrahim died. Submission has been made that there is consistency in the testimonies of the witnesses except some minor discrepancies, which would not falsify the case of the prosecution.
17. Further submission has been made that from the medical evidence of the doctor as also the oral evidence 12 of the victim and other witnesses, it is amply clear that the appellants, with pre-determination of mind assaulted the appellants in which Kausar has got injury in his left arm and deceased Ibrahim has got injury in his eye, which was fatal causing his death.
18. Learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.
Analysis
19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and the testimony of witnesses as also the finding recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned order.
20. Before proceeding further, this Court, deems it fit and proper to go through the testimony of witnesses examined by prosecution. For ready reference, the extract of their testimony is discussed hereunder as:
21. P.W.1-Sheikh Ishak Ali, is the brother of Ibrahim-the deceased and Alimuddin (P.W.4)-the informant. P.W.1 has stated in his deposition that 13 years on 21.11.1977, the occurrence took place. It was 6 A.M. in the morning and he was in his house. His labourer Sk. Failu came and stated that his paddy was being harvested by Baddu Nadaf and others. Then his brother Sk. Ibrahim and Sk. Alimuddin 13 and servant Sk. Kausar and one other servant Kausar went to see the field. He also followed them slowly and his father was also proceeding towards that side. When he had covered a distance of about 100 yards he heard the exhortation of killing, they speed-up and they saw that his brother and others were coming running and were being chased by 15 to 20 persons. The chasers were armed with lathi, bhala, bows and arrows. When he saw them chasing, he and his father fled towards pitch road. Ibrahim and others entered into the house of Aklu Nadaf.
22. It has further been stated that the chasers encircled the house and began to raise alarm of killing. Some of them mounted on the roof of the house and some of them began to break open the Western wall. Seeing this, he left his father at pitch road, proceeded to his house and brought a gun for which he had a license and after bringing gun he fired in air. Culprits raised alarm that the victim died and they fled towards East. He saw Baddu Nadaf, Chhaku Nadaf, Latif Nadaf, Hussaini Nadaf, Ibrahim Nadaf, Dular Rai, Member Rai, Kantrol Rai, Pandu Rai, Pagal Rai, Kedar Rai, Sk. Ainudi, Basant Sikdar, Samu Sikdar and Lakhindar Manjhi fleeing. Baddu and Ibrahim were armed with bhala, Dular Rai was armed with garasa, Basant Sikdar was armed with barchha. Member Rai, Kedar Rai, 14 Ainudi, Lakhindar Rai and Pandu Rai were armed with bows and arrows.
23. P.W-1 further stated that after the accused fled away, he along with his father and Basir came to the house of Aklu Nadaf, where, he saw that an arrow pierced in the eye of Ibrahim. He also saw injury on his left cheek. Ibrahim had fallen on the ground and blood oozed out. One arrow was also pierced in the left arm of Kausar [P.W.5] son of Sk. Tannu and he was inside the room. Kausar son of Akabar was also in that room and he did not have any injury. His brother Alimuddin was in the varandah but he did not sustain any injury. Ibrahim informed that Ainudi shot arrow hitting him in his left eye and Kedar shot an arrow hitting him in his cheek.
24. P.W-1 has further stated that he saw the broken roof and the wall. He has further stated that the Police took the two injured to Mahgama hospital. The Doctor of Mahgama hospital sent the two injured to Bhagalpur Hospital. The two injured were brought to Bhagalpur Hospital and on the same day Ibrahim died. In cross-examination P.W.1 stated that plot no. 159 of village Baredih was not acquired by any title suit by him or his father.
25. P.W-2 Sk. Basheer Ali has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence when he reached near the house of Aklu Nadaf, heard the sound of 'to kill' coming from the 15 house of Aklu Nadaf. He saw from the road that Sk. Jar Ali and Ishaque were in the front of the house of Aklu. He also saw 15 to 20 persons had encircled the house of the Aklu. He heard hulla from the house of Aklu Nadaf that the victim died. Then he heard the firing shot and after hearing firing shot the accused persons fled away. He along with Jar Ali came to the house of Aklu Nadaf. He also saw the accused fleeing away. He saw Baddu armed with bhala, Chhaku with lathi, Ibrahim with bhala, Latif and Hussaini with lathi, Dular with lathi, Nagina with bow and arrows, Kantrol with lathi, Pandu with bow and arrows, Kedar with bow and arrows, Pagal with lathi, Ainudi with bow and arrows, Basant with barchha, Samu with lathi and Lakhindar with bow and arrows. When accused persons fled away, he along with others came to the house of Aklu. There he saw Kausar and Ibrahim injured and an arrow had stuck in the eyes of Ibrahim and blood was oozing from his cheek. He had deposed that Ibrahim told him that Ainudi shot an arrow hitting him on his eye and Kedar shot an arrow hitting him on his cheek. Kausar told him that arrow of Pandu had hurt him.
26. In cross-examination in Para 5 P.W.-2 has stated that he was 50 yards west from the house of Aklu. In Para 8 he has stated that after the accused fled away, first Ishaque entered the house and then he, Jar Ali and Riyasat and 16 entered the house. In Para 9 he has stated that he found Ibrahim falling injured on the ground on the varandah and large amount of blood was fallen on the ground.
27. P.W-3 Sk. Kausar has stated that 13 to 14 years ago he was on his darwaja [gate]. Failu came to the house of Ibrahim and stated that Baddu Nadaf and others were harvesting their paddy. Then Ibrahim along with his servant Kausar (P.W.5) and brother named Alimuddin proceeded and he was also asked to accompany and he also went with them. They were unarmed. When they reached the mouza Baridih Bahiar, there they saw paddy being harvested.
28. He had deposed that Ibrahim forbid harvesting and at this Baddu Nadaf exhorted that they should be killed. Then they fled away and culprits chased them. All the four fled and entered into the house of Aklu Nadaf of village Sarawan and closed the door from inside. The culprits encircled the house and began to raise halla that they should be killed. Pandu Rai after removing tiles from the roof shot an arrow hitting Kausar on his left arm. He has further stated that Ibrahim was hit by an arrow on his left eye and on his cheek shot by Ainudi and Kedar Rai respectively. The arrows remained stuck in the arm of Kausar and in the eye of Ibrahim. P.W-3 further stated that Ainudi and Kedar Rai shot arrows by breaking the western wall. 17
29. P.W-3 in his cross-examination at Para 6, has stated that the persons who were chasing were 20 to 25 in numbers. In Para 7 P.W-3 has stated that all four of them were in the room and when the accused began to break the roof they came to varandah. He has also stated that two arrows were shot from the opening of the wall and both hit Ibrahim, one on the eye and the other on the cheeks. One arrow was shot after removing the roof which hit Kausar.
30. P.W.4-Md. Alimuddin is the informant. He has stated that on 21.11.1977 at 6 A.M., he was at his darwaja [gate] and Kausar S/o Tannu, Ibrahim, Ishaque and Kausar S/o Akbar and his father were also on darwaja [gate]. Then at 6 A.M. Sk.Failu his labourer came and stated that Baddu Nadaf, Chhaku Nadaf, Latif Nadaf, Hussaini Nadaf and Ibrahim Nadaf were harvesting their paddy from the field of village Baridih. On being informed so, he, Ibrahim, both the persons named Kausar went towards the land of village Baridih without any arm. Sk.Failu was sent towards other side of the field. When the four persons including the informant reached Baridih, he saw that Baddu Nadaf and others were harvesting paddy from his field. The field was numbered as Plot No.159 which was the ancestral land measuring 4-5 bigha. They asked the culprits not to harvest then altercation began and Baddu Nadaf exhorted to kill them. Culprits chased them and culprits were armed with 18 bhala, garasa, barchha, bows and arrows and lathi. The informant along with others fled and entered into the house of Akalu Nadaf of village Sarawan and closed the door from inside. The culprits began to broke the wall of the Western side and removed tiles of the roof. After breaking the wall from Western side Sk.Ainudi shot an arrow which hit Ibrahim on his left eye. Kedar Rai shot another arrow which hit Ibrahim on his left cheek. Pandu Rai shot an arrow after breaking the roof of the room which hit Kausar S/o Tannu, in his left hand.
31. In Para 3 informant stated that injured Ibrahim was lifted on hands and brought to Gamaharia Chowk and there he was laid on a cot and was brought to Police Station. On the way to Mahgama police station, near Mahgama Block premises, his Fardbeyan was recorded by the Officer-in- charge. The Officer-in-charge took Fardbeyan of the informant, read over the same to him and the informant finding the statement to be true gave his signature on the Fard Bayan as Ext.-1. He further stated that the Police talked to Ibrahim, after sending the informant away and sent him to Mahgama Hospital. He has also stated that the Police took him in custody. Later on, he heard that the injured Ibrahim was sent from Mahgama to Bhagalpur hospital where he died. Informant further stated that he was released on bail after 15 days.
19
32. In his cross-examination, informant at paragraph 5, has stated that Kailu Nadaf and Mohammad Nadaf are full brothers and both are sons of Aklu Nadaf. Kailu Nadaf, Mohammad Nadaf and others lived in the house were incident occurred. He has stated that he and others were hiding themselves in the Western house. As soon as they entered in the room, they found nobody inside the house. In Para 6 informant stated that as soon as they entered in the room Kausar S/o Tannu, closed the door. Initially they were on the varandah but when shouting of the accused became more vigorous, they came to only room of the house which had no door.
33. At paragraph 8 of his cross-examination, informant has stated the deceased some time became unconscious and sometime conscious.
34. P.W-5 is Sk. Kausar and he is one of the injured. P.W- 5 has stated that 14 years ago he was at the darwaja of Jar Ali. He was servant at his house. There Sk. Failu came and stated that the paddy crop of mouza Baridih was being harvested by Baddu Nadaf, Chhaku Nadaf and others. He and three others-bara Kausar, Ibrahim and Alim were sent by Jar Ali to see the event. They went there and saw paddy being harvested. The culprits were 15 to 20 in numbers in which there were Baddu Nadaf, Chhaku Nadaf, Latif Nadaf, Hussaini Nadaf, Ibrahim Nadaf, Sk. Ainudi, Kedar Rai, 20 Member Rai, Pandu Rai, Pagal Rai, Kantrol Rai, Dular Rai, Lakhindar Rai, Samu Sikdar and Basant Sikdar along with others were there and they were armed with bow and arrows, bhala, lathi and garasa etc. Ibrahim and Alim (P.W.4) asked them not to loot the paddy, but, the looters did not pay any heed. Baddu Nadaf and Chhaku Nadaf exhorted that they should be killed. Then, he and others fled towards West and came to village Sarawa and entered into the house of Mohammad Nadaf. They entered into the house and closed the door from inside.
35. He had stated that the accused persons encircled the house and began to exhort that they should be killed. The culprits broke the Western wall and shot arrows at which they entered into the room situated to the south. Then, the culprits removed tiles from the roof and Ainudi shot an arrow hitting Ibrahim on his left eye and arrow shot by Kedar Rai hit Ibrahim on his cheek. He has also stated that Pandu Rai shot an arrow hitting him on his left arm. He has also stated that after shooting arrow there began alarm outside that the victim died.
36. He has also stated that at time he heard firing shot, then the accused persons fled away. After the accused fled away Sk.Basir, Sk. Jar Ali and Ajabul came there. Ibrahim was in sense at that time and he stated as to how he was injured in the occurrence. P.W-5 has further stated that 21 after the occurrence Ibrahim was lifted and brought to Gamaharia Chowk. He went there on foot. They were brought to Mahagama hospital but no treatment was given there and they were referred to Bhagalpur and in course of treatment Ibrahim died in Bhagalpur Hospital.
37. In his cross-examination at Para 5, P.W-5 stated that Jar Ali got five bighas of land in village Baridih. In Para 6 he has stated that he has been serving since, one year prior to the occurrence. In Para 8 he has stated that after being chased they fled towards West and entered into the room of Aklu Nadaf which is in the North side of the village Sarawan separately situated.
38. P.W.6 Sk. Failu has stated in his evidence that occurrence is 14 years ago at 6 A.M. He was guarding the paddy crop of Jar Ali as his servant. Then Baddu Nadaf, Chhaku Nadaf, Ibrahim Nadaf, Latif Nadaf, Hussaini Nadaf and females, overall 15 to 16 persons came and began to harvest the paddy of Jar Ali. He obstructed but the reapers said that they would continue harvesting and he should go and inform Jar Ali. He came to the house of Jar Ali and informed about the fact. Then, two sons of Jar Ali, namely, P.W.4 Alimuddin and Ibrahim, the deceased, and other persons went towards the field. He set out towards the other side of the field.
22
39. In his cross-examination at Para 3, P.W-6 stated that at the time of occurrence Jar Ali had got 5 servants and out of them four were ploughmen and he was one of the ploughmen. In Para 4 he has stated that he had been ploughman of Jar Ali from 15 years before the occurrence. He has also stated that Kausar was working as sipahi of Jar Ali.
40. PW. 7 and 8 are the doctors. For ready reference, their testimony is being reproduced as under:
41. P.W. 7 Dr. Surendra Narayan Singh has stated in his evidence that on 24.11.77, he was posted at Bhagalpur Medical College as Registered in the Department of Surgery. At 12.45 pm, he examined Sk. Kausar and noted the following injuries on his person.
1. One punchered wound on the left forearm -1/2"x1/2"
born on the entrance and exit.
2. It was full thickness of the arm itself and the weapon was an arrow which was retained inside the wound. Nature of the injury was simple caused by an arrow. Age of injury was within 12 hours.
42. P.W-7 proved injury report in his signature, marked as Ext.-2. P.W-7 further stated that presently Dr. Haider Imam Ansari is posted as Associate Professor in forensic medicine department in Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College which was earlier known as Bhagalpur Medical 23 College. This post mortem report is in the pen and signature of the said Dr. Ansari which is marked as Ext.- 3 with objection.
43. In his Cross-Examination, P.W-7 stated that surrounding area of the mouth of the wound must have been collect with blood, is not mentioned in the report.
44. He had deposed that he does not remember as to whether he extracted the arrow or somebody else, since there is a whole department having several doctors. Colour of the injury has not been mentioned in the report. He had stated that after he completed the examination of injury of the injured, the arrow was still in the wound and it must have been causing acute pain to the injured.
45. P.W.8 Dr. Haidar Iamam Ansari, in his evidence has deposed that on 22.11.177, when he was posted as tutor in forensic medicine Dept. of Bhagalpur Medical College (now been JLN Medical College, Bhagalpur) on 1 P.M., he conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of Sk. Ibrahim S/o Sk Jar Ali of Village Ghatgharmharia, P.S. Mahgama, Distt. Santhal Pargana (Now Godda).
46. The deceased was about forty years of age and was of average built. Rigor mortis was present. On further examination he found the following ante mortem injuries: 24
i) One arrow was found pierced into the left eye lateral surface and was found embedded into it.
ii) On dissection it has fussed through the left eye ball lower portion and has crossed diagonally to opposite side and entered through cranium, through the right wing of sphenoid bone. There was blood in subarachnoid space and at the base of the brain substance.
iii) The injury was ante-mortem and grievous and was caused by the penetration of arrow into the brain substance through the left eye ball.
iv) In his opinion death was caused due to shock, hemorrhage and coma as a result of injury to vital organ namely brain.
Time elapsed since death was within 12 to 24 hours. The arrow has been preserved for the departmental museum for teaching purpose. P.W-8 has identified the P.M. report is in his pen and bears his signature (Identified Ext.3).
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had only consented to the police to retain the arrow in the museum. It was a complete arrow. Before preservation in the department the arrow was shown to the police. It is not in his custody, rather in the custody of the department. Brain substance is caused by three layers, namely (1), Duramaties, (ii), Piamater and (iii) 25 Archrodmaties. All the three layer are boxed with cranium. Content of the cranium cavity was damaged which means the cranium was damaged.
Doctor P.W-8 further stated that excessive hemorrhage and injury to vital organ leads to coma. Since the injury was in brain and there was excessive hemorrhage, doctor concluded that before death, deceased must have been in coma. It is difficult to say as to for how long the deceased should have been in the stage of coma. He has further deposed that since 1977 when he joined the said college and since then he has conducted P.M. examination over nearly 4000 dead bodies. In every such examination when he may have found excessive hemorrhage with injury to vital organ like brain, he must have referred coma too as a cause of death.
47. P.W-9 Baremeshwar Prasad is the investigating officer of the case. Investigating officer has stated that he took the fardbeyan of Alimuddin on 21.11.77 at quarter to 9 A.M. in Mahgama Block premises. The fardbeyan is marked as Ext.-4 and Formal FIR is marked as Ext.-5.
48. Investigating officer had further stated that on the same day he inspected the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is west of Baridih village in the sarwan 26 basti, in house of Md. Nadaf, which is made of mud and tiles. He found western wall made of mud, which is one and half cubies in height and of same breadth and was broken. He also found the tiles of the roof removed of the length and breadth of 1 cubic to 1 cubic and blood in the room. The blood was also on the Varandah.
49. He collected the earthen blood and prepared seizure list, which is marked as Ext.-6. Investigating officer further stated that 500 yards East from the place of occurrence, he found paddy was harvested. Investigating officer further stated that he received carbon copy of inquest report from Bhagalpur, which is marked as 'X' for identification. He also received P.M. Report (Ext.-3) and injury report of the injured. On 08.01.1978, he handed over the investigation to S.I. A. N. Mishra, who filed the Charge-sheet. Investigating officer further stated that it took 10-15 minutes in recording the FIR and at that time Sk. Ibrahim was conscious and after recording the fardbeyan of Alimuddin also, he was conscious. Investigating officer also stated that before recording the statement of Alimuddin, he neither took the statement of Sk. Ibrahim nor he enquired from him.
27
50. P.W.10 is A.S.I. Harendra Singh. He has stated that on 21.11.1977, he was posted at District-Singhbhum. The inquest report is not in his handwriting.
51. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid factual aspect vis-à-vis argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by formulating following questions to be answered by this Court:
(I). Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubt?
(II). Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charges leveled against the appellants as the fact of the given case is?
(III). Whether the order of conviction under Section 302/149 is sustainable in the eye of law ?
52. Since all the issues are inter-linked with each other and as such they are being taken together by taking into consideration the facts of the given case including the testimony of witnesses as also settled proposition of law.
53. From the testimonies, as reproduced above, and the fardbeyan, it is clear that on 21.11.1977 at 6 A.M., the servant of the informant, Sk. Failu came and stated that his paddy was being harvested by Baddu Nadaf, Chhaku 28 Nadaf, Latif Nadaf (Appellant No.1), Hussaini Nadaf and Ibrahim Nadaf (Appellant No.2). Upon this, Sk. Ibrahim(deceased), Informant Alimuddin, P.W-3 Sk. Kausar and P.W-5 Sk.Kausar, went to see the field. The informant party asked the culprits not to harvest upon this there began altercation. Then accused persons chased the informant party. It is the case of the prosecution that while they were being chased the culprits were helped by other persons also. The informant party fled and entered into the house of Akalu Nadaf and closed the door from inside. The accused persons encircled the house and began to break the wall of the Western side and removed soil tiles (kaprail) of the roof. After breaking the wall from Western side Sk. Ainudi shot an arrow which hit Ibrahim on his left eye. Kedar Rai shot another arrow which hit Ibrahim on his left cheek.
54. Pandu Rai (Appellant No.3) removed mud tiles of the roof and shot an arrow which hit Kausar (P.W-5) on his left arm. The injured Ibrahim was lifted and brought to Gamhariya Chowk and on the way, at Mahgama Block premises, the fardbeyan of the informant Md. Alimuddin (P.W-4) was recorded by the Officer-in-charge of the Mahgama P.S. Both the injured Ibrahim and Kausar were 29 sent from Mahgama to Bhagalpur Hospital for treatment where Ibrahim died during treatment.
55. The learned counsel for the appellants has mainly taken the ground of discrepancy and contradiction in the testimonies which has not been appreciated by the learned trial court.
56. In the evidence it has come that informant Md. Alimuddin (P.W.4), is the brother of the deceased Ibrahim. In his examination-in-chief at para-3, informant has deposed that after the incident Ibrahim was lifted on hands and was taken to Gamhariya Chowk and from there he was taken to Mahgama Police Station on coat. On the way to Mahgama Police Station, near Mahgama Block Office, Investigating Officer (P.W-9) had recorded the statement of the informant and there Investigating Officer, after sending the informant away, had talked to Ibrahim, which informant could not hear. From this testimony of informant, it appears that Investigating Officer had talked to Ibrahim meaning thereby that Ibrahim was able to talk. But, P.W.8-Dr. Haidar Imam Ansari, who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Ibrahim, had found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:
30
(i) One arrow was found pierced into the left eye lateral surface and was found embedded into it.
ii) On dissection it has fussed through the left eye ball lower portion and has crossed diagonally to opposite side and entered through cranium, through the right wing of sphenoid bone. There was blood in subarachnoid space and at the base of the brain substance.
iii) The injury was ante mortem and grievous and was caused by the penetration of arrow into the brain substance through the left eye ball.
Doctor opined that death was caused due to shock, hemorrhage and coma as a result of injury to vital organ namely brain.
57. Hence, doctor had found an arrow embedded in left eye laterally and it fused through the left eye ball lower portion and had crossed diagonally to opposite side and entered through cranium. In his cross-examination doctor deposed that cranium was damaged and since injury was in brain and there was excessive hemorrhage, doctor conclude that before death, the deceased must have been coma. Hence, before his death deceased was in coma meaning thereby that deceased was in deep unconscious state and hence, he was not in position to talk. But, contrary to that informant has deposed that Investigating Officer had talked to Ibrahim and this is vital contradiction in the testimony of the informant, which raises doubt in the prosecution case. 31
58. So far as the other ground of discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses is concerned, submission has been made that one witness, Sk. Kausar [P.W. 5] is also said to have sustained injury in his left arm, who has been treated by the P.W. 7-Dr. Surendra Narayan Singh. The doctor P.W-7 in course of trial has deposed that the said Sk. Kausar has been brought before him on 24.11.1997 at 12.45 pm and on examination, he found the injury to be 12 hours prior to the treatment of Sk. Kausar, which itself suggest that the said Kausar got injured on 23.11.1997 and not on 21.11.1977. While as per the prosecution version and the testimonies of the witnesses, Sk. Kausar [P.W-5] was assaulted on 21.11.1977 in the morning and both Ibrahim(deceased) and Sk. Kausar [P.W. 5] were sent to Bhagalpur for treatment on the day of occurrence itself i.e. on 21.11.1977.
59. The alleged injured Sk. Kausar [P.W. 5] has deposed that he had sustained injury and he along with Ibrahim were sent for treatment to Bhagalpur on the day of occurrence on 21.11.1977. Hence, when doctor deposed that he had treated Sk. Kausar [P.W. 5] on 24.11.1997 at 12.45 pm, it means that Sk. Kausar [P.W. 5] was not injured on day of occurrence i.e. on 21.11.1977, as alleged by the prosecution. This raises doubt in the 32 credibility and reliability of the testimony of injured eye witness Sk. Kausar [P.W. 5] and this is fatal for the prosecution case.
60. Further, Doctor P.W.-8, who had conducted Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Ibrahim has deposed that one arrow was found pierced into the left eye lateral surface and arrow was found embedded into it. Doctor has also deposed that arrow has been preserved for the departmental museum for teaching purpose. In his cross-examination, doctor has stated that he had consent of the police to retain the arrow in the museum. It was a complete arrow and before preservation in the department, the arrow was shown to the police. Arrow is not in his custody, rather in the custody of the department. From, the aforesaid, admission of the doctor, it is clear that aforesaid arrow which was alleged to be shot by the accused Sk. Ainudi, was not seized by the police. The arrow was weapon used in the commission of the offence and was important piece of evidence and it should have been seized by the police to be later on produced by the prosecution as material exhibit during trial and this lacuna also raises doubt in the prosecution case.
61. While, learned counsel for the State and the informant has taken the ground that the appellants with pre- 33 determination of mind assaulted the victims in which Md. Ibrahim succumbed to injury which was given by arrow in his eye. So far discrepancies and contradiction as shown by learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, submission has been made that they are so vital enough to disbelieve the prosecution version.
62. This Court on the basis of submissions advanced by the parties vis-à-vis the evidence adduced by the parties, requires to go to the fact that whether the discrepancies as shown is enough to disbelieve the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and this Court has to see as to whether these variations are material and affect the case of the prosecution substantially?
63. This Court in order to answer this question needs to refer the case laws as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 98 at paragraph 32 and 33 has held as under:-
"32. --- --- The minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused but when the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the prosecution case then those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in such cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt.
33. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of evidence on record. As said by Bentham, "witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice.--- -"34
64. In the backdrop of aforesaid settled position, this Court has gone into the testimony of the witnesses so as to come to the conclusion that the variations/discrepancies as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are enough to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and it affect the case of the prosecution substantially.
65. Now, coming to the fact that after being chased, the informant party confined themselves in the house of Akalu Nadaf of village Sarawan and closed the door from inside. Then, culprits began to broke the wall of the Western side and removed soil tiles [khaprail] of the roof. After breaking the wall from Western side it is alleged that Sk. Ainudi shot an arrow which hit Ibrahim on his left eye. Kedar Rai shot another arrow which hit Ibrahim on his left cheek. Pandu Rai shot an arrow after removing soil tiles of the roof, which hit Kausar S/o Tannu on his left hand.
66. It is apparent that the main allegation is against Sk. Ainudi, who shot arrow in the eye of the deceased Md. Ibrahim, which was fatal and caused death of the said Md. Ibrahim. Allegation against Kedar Rai is that he shot arrow on the left cheek of the deceased. Here, it is pertinent to note that both Sk. Ainudi and Kedar Rai, 35 had filed separate appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 40/1997. But, both the main accused Sk. Ainudi and Kedar Rai, died during the pendency, of their appeal. Hence, Cr. Appeal No. 40/1997 (DB) stands abated therefore, this Court is not going in the culpability of their part.
67. In the backdrop of these facts, this Court has only to go into the culpability of appellant Pandu Ray who alleged to have shot arrow on the arm of P.W-5 Kausar.
68. For this, we straightway go to the testimony of doctor, who has deposed about, Sk. Kausar [P.W. 5], who is said to have sustained injury in his arm, and has been treated by the doctor [P.W. 7]. The doctor in the medical report has stated that said Sk. Kausar has been brought before him on 24.11.1997 at 12.45 pm and on examination, he found the injury to be 12 hours prior to the treating the Sk. Kausar, which itself suggest that the said Kausar got injured on 23.11.1997 and not on 21.11.1977 while as per the prosecution version and the testimonies of the witnesses, he was assaulted on 21.11.1977 in the morning. This shows a vital contradiction in the injury which has been said to be sustained to the Md. Kausar and statement made by the doctor. It is established principle of law when there is difference in between the 36 statement of witnesses and medical evidence, the medical evidence importance has to be given emphasis.
69. At this juncture it needs to refer herein that this Court is conscious with the settled legal position that where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, but at the same time it is equally settled position that when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, then it becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence and when the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259, wherein at para 39 it has been observed as under:
"39. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the 37 ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved."
70. Same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421.
71. This Court applying the above law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court is of the view that testimony of the P.W-7 doctor has to be believed which is based on medical examination and certainly he is not the interested witness and rest witnesses produced by the prosecution, all are somehow interested witness and not a single independent witness has been examined though the incidence has occurred in broad-day light.
72. This Court on giving weightage to the testimony of doctor (P.W. 7) has no reason to find the case beyond all reasonable doubt rather it creates a cloud of doubt upon the prosecution case.
73. Furthermore, it would be apt to mention herein that the, learned trial Court has convicted the appellants with the aid of Section 149 IPC. But, the discrepancies as referred in preceding paragraphs raises suspicion in the case of the prosecution.
74. Hence, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants gathered with common object to commit the offence. Therefore, we do 38 not find the ingredient for attracting Section 149 IPC in the case at hand.
75. This Court, in view of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the settled position of law that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt, is of the view so far appellant-Pandu Ray including other appellants is concerned that prosecution has not been able to prove the charges said to be beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the judgment of conviction and sentence needs interference.
76. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decision has propounded the proposition that in the criminal trial, there cannot be any conviction if the charge is not being proved beyond all reasonable doubts, as has been held in the case of Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of U.P., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 454, wherein, at paragraph-22, it has been held as under:-
"22. The amount of doubt which the Court would entertain regarding the complicity of the appellants in this case is much more than the level of reasonable doubt. We are aware that acquitting the accused in a case of this nature is not a matter of satisfaction for all concerned. At the same time we remind ourselves of the time-tested rule that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive 39 liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits. We really entertain doubt about the involvement of the appellants in the crime."
77. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka, (supra), has held at paragraph-26 as under:-
"26. Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the findings recorded by the High Court we feel that the High Court has failed to understand the fact that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and this is a classic case where at each and every stage of the trial, there were lapses on the part of the investigating agency and the evidence of the witnesses is not trustworthy which can never be a basis for conviction. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt."
78. Further, it needs to refer herein the principle of 'benefit of doubt' belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of 'benefit of doubt' can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Bhagirath & Ors., reported in (1999) 5 SCC 96, wherein, it has been held at paragraph-7 as under: -
40
"7. The High Court had failed to consider the implication of the evidence of the two eyewitnesses on the complicity of Bhagirath particularly when the High Court found their evidence reliable. The benefit of doubt was given to Bhagirath "as a matter of abundant caution". Unfortunately, the High Court did not point out the area where there is such a doubt. Any restraint by way of abundant caution need not be entangled with the concept of the benefit of doubt. Abundant caution is always desirable in all spheres of human activity. But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused."
79. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 3 SCC 57 has laid down the principle that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to 41 the accused should be adopted, for reference, paragraph 6 thereof requires to be referred herein which reads hereunder as :-
"6. ------The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. --"
80. It needs to refer herein before laying down the aforesaid view, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 has already laid down the same view at paragraph 163 which is required to be referred which read hereunder as "163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt.---"
81. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect and legal position as discussed hereinabove is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the surviving appellants and further the contradiction among the testimony of the prosecution witnesses has not been appreciated properly, as such the 42 impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence requires interference by this Court.
82. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.12.1996 and order of sentence dated 13.12.1996, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No.33 of 1981/23 of 1995, so far present appellants are concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside.
83. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed and the appellants are acquitted from their criminal liability and discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
84. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Alankar / A.F.R.
43