Jharkhand High Court
M.Rama Rao ? Ramu vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 August, 2017
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: H.C. Mishra, Ananda Sen
1
CRIMINAL APPEAL (D.B.) NO. 863 OF 2006
--------
[arising out of Judgment of conviction dated 18th April 2006 and Order of
sentence dated 22nd April 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.II, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.173 of 2005]
------
M. Rama Rao @ Ramu .... Appellant
versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondents
-------
For the appellants : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate
Mrs. S. Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. S.K. Keshri, A.P.P.
For the Informant Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 16.08.2017 Pronounced on 29.08.2017
Per Justice Ananda Sen, The sole appellant has been convicted and
punished for comitting an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code on the ground of committing murder of his parents. The
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Jamshedpur in Session Trial
No.173 of 2005 vide judgment dated 18 th April, 2006 convicted the appellant
and thereafter, on 22.04.2006 sentenced this appellant for life under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
the sole accused has preferred this appeal.
3. The case arises out of fardbeyan of K.B. Sree Rama Murty recorded on
14.08.2004stating there that he received a phone call at about 10.00 p.m. from Shri V. Nageshwar Rao, who is a neighbour of his father-in-law, stating that both his father-in-law and mother-in-law are lying dead and are hanging 2 from the ceiling fan. On receipt of the said information, the informant passed on the same to his brother-in-law (Sarhu) K. Satyanarayan. Then he along with his brother-in-law went to the Police Station and informed the police. Thereafter, alongwith his Brother-in-law and neighbours, and upon arrival of the police, reached the place of occurrence, i.e., Flat No.303, Meghdoot Apartment, Bhatia Basti, which is his in-law's house. He stated that the main gate of the flat and the grill gate was open and his father-in-law, S. Jagarnath Rao, aged about 72 years, was hanging from the ceiling fan in the drawing room and his mother-in-law Smt. M. Ammaji, aged about 66 years was found hanging in the another room by the ceiling fan. It is stated that the feet below knee of both the deceased persons were touching the ground. The appellant, who is the brother-in-law of the informant (Saala) was seen lying in the bed room of his parents in a state of intoxication. The informant suspected that this is a case of murder.
4. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, the FIR being Kadma Police Station Case No.55 of 2004 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown. The police investigated the case and filed chargesheet against this appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Session. Charge was framed against the appellant on 21 st May, 2005 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which the appellant pleaded "not guilty" and he claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses to prove the case. Several documents and signatures were also exhibited by the prosecution to prove the case. The learned Session Judge, after analysing the evidence and going through the records of the case, reached to the conclusion that this appellant is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after holding the appellant guilty, he was sentenced to undergo 3 imprisonment for life.
6. The appellant, aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and the Order of sentence, preferred this appeal.
7. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the only son of the deceased parents and it is the conspiracy of the informant and his brother-in-law to implicate him in this case so that they can inherit the entire property of the deceased. It is submitted that admittedly there is no direct evidence nor any eye witness against this appellant and this is a case based on circumstances. He argues that in a case, which is based on circumstantial evidence, all the links of the chain must be complete. If any one of those link is missing then, there cannot be any conviction. He submits that in this case the chain of circumstances has not been completed by the prosecution and thus, this appellant could not have been convicted by any stretch of imagination. He submits that from the evidence adduced by the witnesses, it will be crystal clear that this appellant is innocent as there is no evidence against this appellant. It is submitted that from the facts of this case and from the evidence of the doctor, it is also quite clear that it is impossible to commit murder of two persons by a sole person and that being so, appellant is liable to be acquitted in this case.
8. To the contrary, the learned A.P.P., assisted by Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the informant, submitted that there is evidence on record that the deceased were tortured both physically and mentally by the appellant. It is also argued that the prosecution has proved that the appellant entered the flat with another person, who could be the person, who assisted the appellant in committing the murder. He submits that there was no other person in the house, thus, the finger of suspicion points only towards this appellant and none else. He stated that, as the deceased had divested the appellant from the share of the property, the appellant has committed 4 these ghastly murder. Prosecution relied upon the document, which is Exhibit 4 - affidavit-cum-declaration sworn by the deceased Jagarnath Rao by which he debarred this appellant from inheritance. Thus, the State argues that the appellant also had a valid motive to commit this crime and the chain is complete in this case and accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined altogether 16 witnesses.
(a) P.W.1 is K. Lolita, who is the grand daughter of the deceased. She deposed that the deceased were residing with her maternal uncle-the appellant. At about 11.45 a.m. in the morning, she went to the house of the deceased, where she stayed till 02.30 p.m. When her maternal uncle came, this witness went to the flat of her maternal aunt (Mousi), who also resided in the Meghdoot Apartment, i.e., the Apartment where the deceased were residing. In the evening, she again went to the house of her maternal grand parents where her maternal uncle - the appellant, was also there in a state of intoxication. At about 07.15 p.m. in the evening, her parents reached there and the appellant and her mother got involved in heated-conversation in respect of fixing a new grill gate outside the flat. Her father left the place along with this witness as this appellant and his sister started quarreling. The mother of the witness left the place after some time. She stated that this appellant used to mentally and physically torture the deceased often. She deposed that on the very same day, she came to know that her grand parents expired, but, she does not know as to how they died. In cross examination, she stated that their relationship with the appellant was very good. She further stated that the residence of her maternal aunt (Mousi) and this appellant is only at a distance of 5 feet.
(b) P.W.2 Dr. Lalan Choudhary, who, along with Dr. Y. Nath, conducted the postmortem of both the deceased. He found the following injuries on M. 5 Jagannath Rao: -
(1)(i) Ante-mortem ligature mark encircling neck with 4 c.m.
width;
(ii) Ligature mark over upper most part of neck in front and sides 11 x 1 c.m. and
(iii) Ligature mark of size 36 x 25 c.m. over lower part of neck, faint at front and deep abraded over back of neck.
(2)(i) Bruise of size 1 x 1 c.m. over Rt. Elbow.
On desection : - Neck:- Under ligature mark sub cutaneous tissue dry, pale & glestering (chamakta) larynx & trachial mucusa congested & contains white fine froth.
As per his opinion, the cause of death is hanging and the bruise is caused by hard and blunt object.
He also conducted the postmortem of M. Ammaji and found the following ante-mortem injuries:-
(1)(i) Antimortem Ligature mark encircling the neck intermingling with 6 c.m. width.
(ii) Bruise 4 x 3 c.m. over Lt. leg upper most part.
On disection:- Skull:- middle part of parital scalp contused 1 x 1 c.m. 20 in number small contusions over Rt. parital pro-tubrance and occipital scalp area mild contusion of paraital Rt. Frontal temporal & bare of brain.
Neck: - under Ligature mark. Subcutaneous tissue dry, pale & glasting. Larynx & Trachial mucosa congested & containing white froth.
As per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is hanging and the bruises and contusion are caused by hard and blunt object. The doctor further opined that in the case of female it is the homicidal death, whereas in the 6 case of male, it is either homicidal or suicidal.
He deposed that the points in favour of homicidal hanging is by the term of ligature mark being same in both the bodies, which is suggestive of application of ligature over the neck by one person. He also stated that the head injuries present over the dead body of female suggests that vicim sustained injuries prior to hanging. He stated that this fact can be proved or disproved with the examination of place of occurrence, neighbours and interrogation by the investigating officer. He deposed that in absence of any such fact that it can be assumed that the husband of the victim caused injuries to the deceased wife, who fell to unconsciousness and managed to hang the body in unconscious state. He stated that for homicidal hanging, it is not possible by any person to hang the heavy body alone in conscious state.
(c) P.W.3 is Dr. Y. Nath, who also accompanied P.W.2 in conducting the postmortem. He opined that:-
(i) the clothings of both the deceased were in order.
(ii) Deceased Mr. M.J. Rao had hanged by tying saree with ceiling fans & with neck. The knee was bent and touching the ground. This feature is almost diagnostic of partial hanging.
(iii) There was no any disturbance to the articles around the victim in the room.
(iv) The deceased Mrs. M. Ammaji too hanged from ceiling fan with feet touching the ground and usual feature of hanging.
These findings are in accordance with partial hanging, appears to be plotted in the plan before hanging.
He deposed that he was called by the Officer-in-Charge, Kadma Police Station to give an opinion after observing the video which was recorded.
(d) P.W.4 is Ganesh Pathak, who is the Guard of the Meghdoot Apartment. He stated that this appellant used to stay along with his family in Meghdoot 7 Apartment. He stated that at about 08.30 p.m. in the evening, Rama Rao was quarrelling with some Keralian. Thereafter murder had taken place. Mother and father of this appellant were found murdered in the apartment where this appellant was also living. There was no other person residing there. Rama Rao was in an intoxicated state on that day. In cross examination, he stated that K.V.S. Rama Murty also resides in Meghdoot Apartment. He stated that he is acquainted with Rama Rao since last 5 years and Rama Rao did not quarrel with any one. He deposed that as he was quarreling with some Keralian, he could guess that Rama Rao was drunk. He stated that at 9 O' clock, Rama Rao went out and returned with one person at 09.30, whom he did not know. The said person was there for 20 minutes.
(e) P.W.5 is K. Satyanarayan. He is the son-in-law of the deceased and brother-in-law of this appellant and father of P.W.1. He stated that P.W.1 went to the Meghdoot Apartment to meet her grand parents. He along with his wife also reached there at about 07.15 p.m. He stated that his parents-in-law and this appellant were present in the house. The appellant entered into some verbal duel with this witness and as the appellant abused him, he came out from the flat. His daughter also followed him. His wife remained there, but she also left the place at about 07.15 p.m. and they went back to their house. At about 10.15 p.m. K.B.S.R. Murty, his brother-in-law (Sarhu) informed him that his father-in-law and mother-in-law have expired. Upon receipt of such information, this witness along with his family members reached the place. He along with his brother-in-law (sarhu) and two persons from Meghdoot Apartment, went to Kadma Police Station and gave verbal information and reached the place of occurrence with the police. He stated that both the dead persons were found hanging in two separate rooms. The father-in-law was found hanging in the drawing room and mother-in-law in the bedroom. He stated that the knee and feet of the deceased was touching the ground. He 8 identified his signature in the fardbeyan and the seizure list. In cross examination, he stated that his brother-in-law (sarhu) was not in visiting term with the in-laws prior to 6-7 months. He stated that his brother-in-law (sarhu) Murty was living as a Ghar Jamai in the house of his in-laws. He stated that there was some verbal altercation between this appellant and the wife of this witness. He stated that his brother-in-law stays in the same campus, but, in different block. He stated that before going to the police station, he did not see the condition of his in-laws. He stated that he is not very close with his brother-in-law (sarhu). He gave the details of the relatives of his in-laws, who resides nearby in the town of Jamshedpur. He stated that inquest report was prepared in their presence. He denied the fact that they used to pressurise his in-laws to give the property to them.
(f) P.W.6 is Ashok Das, who stated that he is also a Guard of Meghdoot Apartment. He stated that his duty was from 06.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m. and he knows the appellant.
(g) P.W.7 V. Shivam Kutty is a tendered witness.
(h) P.W.8 is P. Krishna Rao. He stated that on the date of occurrence, at about 09.30 p.m., he returned from Sakchi Market with his wife and suddenly, he saw that several persons assembled in the house of M.J. Rao, who were all neighbours. He also went there and saw Mrs. and Mr. M.J. Rao, hanging from the fan in the two different rooms. He, immediately, informed the son-in- law of M.J. Rao, who was residing in the same campus and returned to his home. On 19.08.2004, at about 08.30 p.m. the police recovered an affidavit and Mr. K.V.S. Murty gave the same to the Officer-in-Charge. He stated that a seizure list was prepared, which was signed by him also. He identified his signature. In cross examination, he stated that he has heard nothing about the quarrel nor he could say about the nature of the affidavit.
(i) P.W.9 is V. Nageshwar Rao. He stated that on the date of occurrence, 9 at about 10.15 p.m., when he was in his house, Mr. Rama Rao (the appellant), came to him shouting that he is ruined as his mother and father have expired. This witness, immediately, rushed to Flat No.C/303 and saw M.J. Rao and his wife hanging by the ceiling fan. Both were in two different rooms. He came back and informed Mr. K.V.S.R. Murty. Rama Rao was crying and was intoxicated. He stated that inquest report was prepared and he identified his signature and signature of Banna Gupta, which were marked as Exhibit 6 and 6/1. He stated that he used to visit the house of Rama Rao and the sister, brother-in-law of Rama Rao used to visit regularly. He stated that he has never heard about any altercation between Rama Rao and his parents directly, but, indirectly he heard that there was some dispute, but, could not say what was the reason of the said dispute. He stated that at about 10.00 to 10.05 p.m., he was returning to his house and while he was in the lift, he could hear the voice of this appellant as this appellant was with a person, who was brought to break the lock.
(j) P.W.10 is K. Lata, who is the daughter of the deceased, but, is a tendered witness. She stated that her husband never stayed as Ghar Jamai nor there was any dispute in respect of property of her parents.
(k) P.W.11 K. Usha Rani is the daughter of the deceased and mother of P.W.1, who stated that P.W.1 went to the house of her grand parents on that day. She stated that she was informed by her mother that her aunt came to meet her. She also stated that some verbal altercation had taken place between her husband and this appellant and the appellant was in a drunken state. She stated that her husband left for his own house in Block 'B' and her daughter also left. There was also verbal altercation between the appellant and this witness and this witness thereafter left at 07.50 p.m. At about 10.15 p.m. K.V.S.R. Murty, who is the brother-in-law, informed that they have to go to Meghdoot Apartment. When they reached Meghdoot Apartment, she could 10 come to know that her father and mother have expired. She entered the house only when the police came. In her cross examination, she stated that she did not enter the flat where her father and mother died as several persons were going there. She went to the flat of her sister. She stated that her relatives reside in Jamshedpur. Nothing important was extracted by the defence from this witness.
(l) P.W.12 is K.V. Sri Rama Murty, who stated that he was residing in Meghdoot Apartment and the deceased was residing in C/303 in the same apartment along with the son, the appellant. He stated that N. Nageshwar Rao informed that his in-laws are found hanging from the fan in their residence. He gave the said information to his wife and children and thereafter to K. Satyanarayana. He stated that he went to the Police Station with others. He came to the apartment along with the police and thereafter entered the flat. He saw his father-in-law hanging in the drawing room by the ceiling fan, but his knee and feet were touching the ground and in another room, his mother-in-law was also hanging in the same position. This witness stated that this appellant was lying in the room of his father and this witness felt that this appellant was intoxicated. He stated that his fardbeyan was recorded in the said flat at about 11.30 p.m. The signature on the fardbeyan was marked as Exhibit 4/3. He identified the signature of other witnesses, which were marked Exhibits 4/1 and 4/2. He stated that before the death, his father-in-law had sworn an affidavit-cum-declaration on 10.09.2002. He identified the said affidavit and the signature of the deceased M.J. Rao was marked exhibit. He also proved the signature of B. Rameshwari, Advocate on the same affidavit, which was marked as Exhibit 4/4, 4/5, 4/6, 4/7 with objections. He stated that B. Rameshwari is his relative, so, he could recognise her signature. He stated that he only handed over the said affidavit to the police on 19.08.2004. In cross examination, he stated that he was 11 married in October 1978 and before marriage, he was residing with the deceased in his house as he was also his maternal uncle. He stated that from the date of his marriage till 1993, he used to reside with his in-laws in a separate room and used to pay rent to his father-in-law. He stated that he knew about the existence of this affidavit-cum-declaration. He stated that without seeing the dead bodies, only on hearing about the incidence, he went to the police station. He stated that the date of occurrence was the birthday of her mother-in-law, but, they did not go to wish her. He stated that his relation with this appellant was normal. To a Court question, he stated that as he did not want to put himself in trouble, he went to the Police Station without seeing the dead bodies.
(m) P.W.13 is Rekha Kumari, who is the maid servant of the deceased. She stated that this appellant used to reside with his parents and she knows nothing about the occurrence and she was declared hostile.
(n) P.W.14 is V. Sharda, who is the sister-in-law of deceased M.J. Rao and sister of deceased M. Ammaji. She stated that in the evening at about 05.00 p.m. she went to the house of the deceased where her sister, brother-in-law and the appellant were present. She stated that in the evening, she returned. She also stated that this appellant was in his house and the relationship between the deceased and the appellant was very affectionate, especially with the mother. She was also declared hostile. In cross examination, she stated that this appellant behaved very cordial with everyone. She also stated that on receiving information about the death, she, immediately came to the place of occurrence and she stated that both the daughters of the deceased never went to see the body of their parents and only in the early morning when the bodies were brought down, they went to see the dead-bodies.
(o) P.W.15 is Mukesh Kumar, who stated that he was in his shop at about 09.30 to 09.45 when one person on a motorcycle came and that person was 12 in a drunken condition. This witness accompanied him in a motorcycle to Meghdoot Apartment. The grill of the flat was locked from inside by a lock. This witness broke the locks and the person, who brought him, brought a torch from his neighhbours and went inside and started shouting. All the neighbourers gathered. The said person told this witness that he will pay him later and asked him to leave. He identified the person, who brought him to break open the lock as this appellant. He stated that the lock was put on the inner side of the grill gate. He stated that the police had taken his statement on the next day.
(p) P.W.16 Gauri Shankar Gupta was Officer-in-Charge of Kadma Police Station. He stated that he heard some rumor that some incident had taken place in the Meghdoot Apartment. After making an entry in the Station Diary, he reached with the Inspector of Police, Shri Raja Ram Prasad and others at Meghdoot Apartment. There, he met with the informant and other persons. He recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, which was marked Exhibit 4/4. He stated that V. Nageshwar Rao, Major K. Satnam Rao and V. Krishna Rao signed the fardbeyan. He took up the investigation and on 15.08.2004, the case was registered. He reached the place of occurrence about 23-30 hours on 14.08.2004. He gave description of the flat and states that there was a grill gate in front of the main entrance and there was a 'T' type latch inside the grill gate. He stated that Jagarnath Rao was found dead in the drawing room. In another room M. Rama Rao was found lying in the bed, who was in a drunken state. He stated that in another room, M. Ammaji was found hanging by the ceiling fan. He stated that the only latch of the main gate was found broken. The lower lock was ineffective and in fact, there was no lock. He stated that knee of both the deceased were touching the ground. He stated that he videographed the entire place of occurrence with the help of Kavita Singh, representative of News Time. He stated that he prepared the inquest 13 report of both the bodies, which were marked as Exhibit 6/2 and Exhibit 7. Thereafter the bodies were sent for postmortem. He recorded the statements of K.S. Rao, K. Lata, K. Usha, K. Lolita, V.N. Rao, Bipin Kumar etc. He obtained the postmortem report. The video CD was also produced by Brij Mohan Gupta on 16.08.2004 for which the production-cum-seizure list was also prepared by him, which was marked as Exhibit 8. He stated that the statement of the accused was recorded by him in paragraph 57 and finding sufficient material against him chargesheet was submitted under Section 302. In cross examination, he stated that for the first time, at about 23.30 Hrs. on 14.08.2004, he met the informant in Meghdoot Apartment. He stated that he presumed that this appellant was in a state of intoxication, but, no chemical examination was conducted. He stated that at the place of occurrence, there was no mark of any violence. He stated that there was no lock or latch inside the main door. Nothing more was extracted from his examination.
10. After hearing the parties, when we analyse the evidence, we find that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. Witnesses have stated that this appellant was residing with the deceased in the same flat. On the date of occurrence, there was some verbal altercation in the evening between this appellant and his brother-in-law, P.W.5 and thereafter with P.W.11. As per these two witnesses, the dispute was in respect of grill gate in front of main entrance. From the evidence of these two persons, it is quite clear that they left the place of occurrence at about 07.50 p.m.
11. The incriminating evidence, which has come against the appellant is that this appellant was lying on the bed in one room of the flat. Another evidence, which is against this appellant is that P.W.1 K. Lolita, who is the grand daughter of the deceased, stated that this appellant used to torture the deceased mentally and physically and the 3rd incriminating material against the appellant is a document, which is a declaration-cum-affidavit, allegedly 14 executed by the deceased father of the appellant, by virtue of which the appellant has been disowned by him and he has been divested of inheritance in respect of the property of the deceased. With these materials, the prosecution tried to prove that there were sufficient motive for this appellant to commit murder of his parents, and it is the appellant who has murdered them.
12. It is well settled principle that however strong may be the motive, but, in absence of any evidence pointing towards the guilt of the deceased, conviction cannot be sustained. So far as the motive is concerned, we find that only P.W.1 stated that the relationship between the deceased and the appellant was strained and the appellant was physically and mentally torturing the deceased. No other witness has deposed in the same manner. Even P.W.9 V. Nageshwar Rao, who is the next door neighbour of the deceased in paragraph 6, stated that he directly has not heard about any altercation between the deceased and the appellant. This creates a doubt as to whether dispute was of such nature, which would lead to murder of the deceaseds by the appellant. So far as the document, i.e., affidavit-cum- declaration is concerned, the same has not been exhibited. It has been only marked as 'X' for identification. The signature of the deceased M.J. Rao (the executor of the document) and the advocate has been proved by P.W.12. In our opinion, this document cannot be looked into as the advocate, who has prepared the document on the instructions of the deceased, has not been examined in this case. Further, this document was produced by this witness to the investigating officer at a much later date. This creates a doubt in our mind about the genuinity of the document. Thus, we find that the motive is not strong enough to implicate the appellant in this case.
13. So far as other evidence is concerned, the witness, i.e., P.W.9 has stated that it is the appellant, who has informed him that his father and mother were lying dead. This witness also stated that a person was brought 15 to break open the lock of the gate. The Guard of the building, i.e., P.W.4 Ganesh Pathak, who was present at the relevant time, deposed that this appellant had brought a person with him in the late evening and that person left within 20 minutes. P.W.15 Mukesh Kumar is the person who was brought to break open the lock. This witness clearly identifies this appellant in the Court. He stated that the appellant had brought him to break open the lock. On the instruction of this appellant, he broke open the lock and this appellant entered the flat and came out shouting and screaming. He stated that neighbours also gathered hearing his screams. This suggests that the lock was broken and this appellant entered the flat. The investigating officer also found that the latch of the main door was broken from inside.
14. Another aspect in this case is that the investigating officer did not find any weapon of murder at the place of occurrence nor he found any mark of violence at the place of occurrence. All the materials at the place of occurrence were found intact and unscattered. The doctor also stated that for homicidal hanging it is not possible by any accused to hang the heavy body alone in conscious state. If that be so, it was not possible for the appellant, who was found alone in the house to have hanged his parents in conscious state. Indeed, no evidence of any scuffle was found by the I.O. at the place of occurrence. No murder weapon was found in the place of occurrence and further, if this appellant tried to commit murder of both the deceased then, there bound to be some scuffle and resistance. There could also have been screams and shouts. None of the neighbours of the flats, even the next door neighbour heard any such scream or shouting. Further, we find that the first information report was against unknown and no doubt was casted by any one against this appellant.
15. The fardbeyan was recorded on 14.08.2004 at night. The formal first information report was registered on 15.08.2004 at 07.00 a.m. in the morning. 16 Surprisingly, the FIR was received by the Court on 19.08.2004, which is after 5 days. This delay of 5 days has not been explained by the prosecution. As discussed earlier, none of the witnesses had casted any doubt about the involvement of this appellant. The prosecution has only brought, through P.W.1, that the appellant was torturing the deceased. This is not a sufficient evidence to implicate this appellant in this case. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is too weak and the chain of circumstances is also not complete in this case, and as such we cannot reach to a conclusion that it is the appellant only, who has committed murder of his parents.
16. Thus, we feel that the benefit of doubt is to be extended to the appellant in this case. We, therefore, set aside the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 18th April 2006 and Order of sentence dated 22 nd April 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.173 of 2005. This appellant is acquitted of the charges by giving benefit of doubt.
17. The appellant is in custody and he is directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.
18. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
H.C. Mishra, J. I agree.
(H.C. Mishra, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
The, 29th August, 2017
Kumar/AFR