Crl.A./356/2023 on 29 April, 2024
26. The learned court below also considered the decision of
Jharkhand High Court in Sarju Ghorel & Ors. vs. State of Bihar
(now Jharkhand) reported in 2006 CRI.L.J. 1885 referred by
the appellant side, and found that the same does not come to the
rescue of the appellant, in as much as the appellant side had failed
to indicate that any of the independent witnesses i.e. P.W.2, P.W.4
and PW6 are inimical to the accused or have motives to falsely
Page 21 of 28
implicate the accused with the alleged offences and that except
P.W.3, who is the elder brother of the informant, P.W.2, P.W.4 and
P.W.6 are not related either to the injured or to the deceased, and
they are not hostile to the accused in order to doubt their evidence
and moreover, the appellant side had failed to elicit anything from
their cross-examination so as to indicate that whatever they have
deposed is false or concocted also contributes to their
creditworthiness. And having considered the finding of the learned
court below, in the light of given facts and circumstances on the
record, I find no just ground to take a different view from that of
the learned court below. While no material contradiction in the
version of witnesses were brought on record so as to prove the
same through the I.O., then non examination of the I.O. would
have no consequence and it has no bearing upon the veracity of
the prosecution case. Moreover, no prejudice to the appellant was
established.