Blog

The FIR is not an encyclopedia but can be used for corroborating the maker of the report – Jharkhand high court

The criminal appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned sessions judge S. T. No. 22 of 2010 in which the appellants were convicted for the charge under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. the present appeals are opposing the order of conviction on the ground that there was an error in passing the judgment by a lower court. The present appeals were heard by a two-judge bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD in Sapan Hadi(in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 507/2014), Gujra Dome(in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 252/2013), Santosh Hadi(in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 595/2013) versus The State of Jharkhand

The facts of the case are that the three appellants have been convicted for the offenses under Section 302/34 of I.P.C in which the sapan hadi stabbed the informant in the chest and Santosh hadi enticed away from the daughter of the informant and kept her in the house and all appellants have been together convicted for the murder of the informant and based on these activities the charge sheet was filed against the appellants and the sessions judge convicted them of above-mentioned offenses based on the examination of witnesses and the basis of the evidence presented. The statements of appellants were also recorded under section 313 of C.R.P.C.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 507 of 2014 submits that the appellant was implicated only on the fact that he had enticed away and solemnized marriage with the daughter of the informant. The counsel further submits that the witnesses in the case are interested parties and reliance cannot be put on their evidence and no independent witness has been testified in the case.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 252 of 2013 submits that the appellant has been convicted only for his presence at the crime scene and further there are major contradictions in evidence testimonies. the counsel further submits that mere standing at the place of occurrence would not invite invocation of Section 34 I.P.C and the appellant could have been involved in it if there has been a meeting of minds with the other accused persons.

The amicus curiae appearing for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 595 of 2013 submits that the witness has divested in his statement than written in the FIR as stated in her evidence.

The learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the evidence is cogent, categorical, and clear and states the role of each appellant in the commission of the offense and the acts the appellants would come within the purview of Section 34 I.P.C.

The court after hearing the arguments decides that the role of appellant Sapan Hadi in the murder of the informant is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the sentence passed against him is affirmed. as for the other appellants to decide the motive and application of section 34 I.P.C, the court relied on the case of “Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu Vs. the State of Punjab” reported in (2022) SCC Online 20 and it was decided the other appellants does not have the same intent as sapan hadi and this can be confirmed from the FIR in the case and the evidence presented and hence it can be said that all appellants do not have the same motive.

The court from the above-mentioned findings decides that the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 252 of 2013 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 595 of 2013 finds that the learned trial court had committed an error of law while convicting the said appellants for the offense under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced them accordingly and as for Sapan Hadi in Cr. Appeal No. (DB) No. 507 of 2014 is concerned, the learned trial court was justified in convicting him for the offense under Sections 302/34 I.P.C . hence the appeals are allowed and disposed of.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma