LexRAJ KISHORE JHA versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
v.
ST A TE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
_,.
·..,, ·•r
'· 'd
•
' 'I
;
' .
'1t.
•.1 (
,,,,
B
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]
t,->fi!.;:Ut:JIH.>~n~.:tJ~,t
_..fi,~U,1i"'"
~ff~-'
f •• ,,~
sil.
1,,,' • ..:ti
'.- ' '•('Penal :oide
1'J 860LSeeti<>iis 302, 304-11, · 109,' iiJ;• 'J 48'and·149_._
x;.;,;.s1'Aci;'1959LSehiio'n 27;!1.A')1,
11'heing a'pbli'of'a'tiiob s·k~t down iHe
dec~aseCl-Triat CouFI hcqlli1ied
15- Jilt 'of 15 acci1ie'd p'er~onl~Hi~h "coiirt
c iitqtitted '.aii coh'viCted persdn"l.:.!!6h"app'eai }li~a 'by 'info~~la/11, •lbg'Jinst
j
-,~tquilt&J; H~Jd''.·hJ/igiVCou;P'dispos~i'Jfthe' cippeai'in ~ raiher' c'ajz;~l
manner "and inost corzclus;;,,~~ arrived 'at \i1ere per se' not on sound
footing-Non-reasoned conclusions by appellate courts are not appropri;;,te,
more so, ·when views of the lower court are differed jrom-Reas~n is th~
q heartbeat of every conclusion, whithout which it becomes lifeless.
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 145-Contradictin.g evidence-If a
witness is intended to be contradicted by his own writing, attention must
be called to those parts of his former state'!1erzt and the same must b~
E disowned by him-Held, his tesiimony in court would not be vitiated until
the cross-examiner proceeds to comply with the procedure prescribed ilJ
the second limb of Section 145.
According to the Prosecution, A-1, A-6, A-2, A-3, A-7, A-15,
A-14, A-4, A·8 and others, armed with weapons assembled near the
F door of one D to loot his Khalihan and an argument took place between
them, the deceased and the appellant, A-7 and A-6 ordered A-1 to shoot
down the deceased, which he did, thereafter they left the place of
occurrence. The deceased died on the way to the hospital. According
to the defence version, the deceased and the informant had actually
G formed an armeu mob of 5()..60 persons and went to the ~ouse of A-
7, asking him to withdraw certain litigation. They began looting wheat
and other articles and also pelted stones at the other villagers, who also
retaliated. D was also present there and he opened fire and one of the
gunshots hit the deceased. The trial court acquitted 5 out of the IS
H accused persons. The remaining accused were separately convicted
208
R.K. JHA v. ST A TE
209
under Sections 302, 109, 147 and 148 l.P.C. read with Section 27 of A
the Arms Act.
: ·
High Court acquitted ,all the convicte~ persons. Hence this appeal
by the informant.
The' app~llant contended that the ;l~p:ug~ed jud~m'~~'t ~as based 'B
on surmises and conjecture~ ~nd .n.o ~ea,~~n. was i11dic?tt;d to discard
the pla~sible an~; c,ogent prosec1;1ti<?n ... testimony;., ~~~t non-examinatiqn
.~f the Im:estiga,ti~~· Pf~cer .d!~. ,not prej_~~ic.e.Jhe ~ccuse~; that th~r.e
1is ~o inflexibl,e, rule 1t~at w1le1\a •. wit~ess \s .not na!J?~d. i~ th~ f'.!:·~~.~\s ·1
1~~rsion is :,~9 ~e · discar~ed;. t~~( ~?..re~so.~~. were ip;dic~~~d as;to. ~hy C
evidence led by some 'inportant prosecution witnesses was discarded;
and that they were accused persons in the counter-case did not make
them unreliable witnesses.
The respondent-accused persons contended that the impugned D
judgment indicated several reasons making the prosecution version
vulnerable; that the forensic laboratory report in their favourwas kept
out of consideration with ulterior motive; that the observation of the
Investigating Officer with regard to the place of occurrence strengthens
the defence version; that only one shot was fired even according to the
prosecution from a distance of 70-80 ft. which itself showed that death E
was not intended, even if the prosecution version was accepted in toto;
that non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused grant prejudice
to the accused persons; and that it being a fit case for acquittal there
should be no interference when the State did not prefer any appeal.
The respondent-State contended that though it did not prefer any
appeal, the judgment of acquittal could not be maintained.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
F
HELD : 1.1. A bare perusal of the judgment of the High Court G
shows that it disposed of the appeal in a rather casual manner. Most of
the conclusions arrived at are per se not on sound footing. The appellate
court will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice by not
interfering where interference is imperative. Where doubt is based on
ir~elevant grounds or where the court allows itself to be deflected by the H
210
SUPREME COURT REExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.