RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 420 · Decided: 12-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

e 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 420 
:-
•, 
A 
RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. 
v. 
-,, 
ST ATE OF JHARKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2p20 of 2008) 
B 
DECEMBER 12,' 2008 
[S. 8. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
-
Penal Code, 1Bf0-ss. 302, 148 and 326 - Prosecutkm 
for causing death. o one and causing injuries to others -
c Cross-FIRs by complainant and accused parties - Accused 
taking please of self-defence -
Non-examination of 
Investigating Officer - Non-production of Sanha regarding the 
'::4
incident - Case at the instance of the accused persons still 
pending before trial Court - Conviction of accused by Courts 
D below - On appeal, held: In view o~ the facts that prosecution 
has not come out with genesis ol the occurrence and that 
investigation was conducted in slipshod manner, and in view 
' 
of the conduct of the complainant party, conviction not justified 
--r-
\ 
- The case was required to be considered in the light of the 
E 
defence case - Accused were entitled to right of private 
defence - Hence, acquitted. 
Two cross-FIRs were filed, one by the complainants 
against the appellants-accused and the other by the 
appellants-accused against the complainant party. 
Allegation of the Complainant pty was that the accused 
F assaulted complainant's father ( eceased) and his uncle 
(PW-1), while they were sitting in: front of their house. The 
+ 
" 
motive for the commission of offence was said to be 
objection by the deceased from creating nuisance by the 
accused in front of their house. The accused persons in 
G their FIR alleged that the deceased trespassed their 
house and tried to outrage the modesty of a woman folk 
of the house. When she raised alarm, the appellants came 
~ 
to her rescue. They alleged that the deceased was armed 
with 'tangi' wherewith he assaulted two of the appellants. 
~ 
H 
420 
,~, 
RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 421 
~-
Deceased called all his family members and appellants A 
were assaulted. 
Prosecution was initiated against the .accused 
persons u/ss. 302/149, 307/149, 326/147, 148 and 324, IPC. 
Prosecution was also initiated against prosecution 
witnesses (complainant party) u/ss. 147/149, 323/149 and 
B 
342/149, IPC on the basis of FIR lodged by the accused 
persons. The case against the complainant party is still 
~ 
pending before trial court. 
During trial, the Investigating Officer of the instant 
case, who had recorded the 'fard beyan' of appellant- c 
accused No. 5, was not examined as witness. The 
'sanha', recorded by PW17 on the basis of telephonic call 
informing about the incident, was also not produced 
before the Court. Trial court convicted accused 'R' und~r 
Sections 302, 148, IPC; accused 'J' under Section 302, 148 
and 326, IPC; accused 'K' and 'Rm' under Sections 326 
D 
and 148, IPC; accused 'S' and 'U' under Sections 148, IPC. 
-\ 
Appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by High 
' 
Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The trial court as also the High Court, did 
E 
not record any finding that all the accused persons 
formed a common object. There was no premeditation on 
the part of the accused. Two of the accused have been 
found guilty u/ss. 302 and 148 IPC and other accused 
under Sections 326 and 148 thereof. [Para 16] (435-D-E] 
.. 
2. The prosecution has not come out with the 
F 
-t 
genesis of the occurrence. It is not clear as to why both 
)' 
the cases filed by the complainant party as well as the 
accused persons were not taken up by the same court 
one after the other and as to how a criminal case of the 
year 1999 is still pending before trial court. [Para 16] (435-
G 
F] 
3. The trial court as also the High Court appeared to 
~ 
have proceed on the premise that as the appellants had 
... 
not been able to prove their defence, and therefore, the 
prosecution version should be accepted. The approach 
H 
-
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
·v 
A of the courts below was, thus, not correct. [Para 17] [435-
G] 
4. The investigation was carried out in a slipshod 
manner. The FIR clearly showed that even before lodging 
of the FIR, investigation had started. The inquest was 
B conducted, bloodstained grass and soil had been seized 
and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. [Para 17] 
[435-H; 436-A] 
5. The injured p~tsons rec~ived grievous injuries. It 
was expected that they would be rendered some medical 
c help at the earliest. They were unconscious and, thus, 
they should have been sent for tre

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.