Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1049 (JHR)

Anjan Chatterjee v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-29

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT By Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.6.2009 passed by Shri Prabhu Nath Lal, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saraikella in Sessions Trial no. 155 of 1998 by which judgment learned Sessions Judge found the appellant Anjan Chatterjee guilty for the offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years and pay a fine of Rs.10, 000/-and in default further S.I. for 3 months. The appellant was further convicted u/s 27 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of the fardbeyan given on 1.8.1997 at 22.45 hrs. to Sri R. Mishra, Investigating Officer of the Adityapur police station by the informant , P.W.1 Tulsi Das Mukherjee stating therein that today in the evening he was at home and the light went off, then he came out of his house and was standing on the gully which is north of his house. Then suddenly from the western side some sound came and he received bullet injury on his thigh. Hearing the sound, family members of his house came out and took him to Tata Main Hospital (T.M.H.) where he was treated. He became stunned by the sudden firing. He has stated that he has got land dispute with his brother-in-law, Dhirendra Nath Chatterjee since many years ago and the case is pending in the court of Munsif, Saraikella and the said case is fixed for hearing on 5.8.1997. Anjan Chatterjee S/o Dhirendra Nath Chatterjee had given threatening from before that land which he has kept in his possession belong to his father and stated that he will cause his death. Due to that Anjan Chatterjee had fired upon him for committing his murder which hit him on the thigh, since he was standing on a higher platform. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the instant case there is no eye witness except the informant, P.W.2 and evidence of the informant and that of the Investigating Officer in the F.I.R. are contradictory to each other. Although as per the F.I.R. informant has not seen the accused-appellant, Anjan Chatterjee firing upon him but in trial named him, since he wanted to improve his case in the court. Although as per the F.I.R. informant has not seen the accused-appellant, Anjan Chatterjee firing upon him but in trial named him, since he wanted to improve his case in the court. Moreover, the doctor did not find fire arm injury on the person of the informant and hence, the entire prosecution case is doubtful and the appellant is fit to be acquitted. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the state has submitted that the prosecution has fully proved the case in his evidence and the doctor has found injury which was grievous in nature. Appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial court. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the evidences on record, I find that in course of trial the prosecution has altogether examined 5 witnesses. P.W.1 Malvika Mukherjee is the daughter-in-law of the informant. P.W.2 Tulsi Das Mukherjee is the informant of the case. P.W.3 Ramashish Mishra is the investigating officer of the case. P.W.4 Sailendra is also the investigating officer of the case. P.W.5 Dr. Manoj Kumar Rajak is the Doctor who has examined the informant. 6. From the evidences on record, it appears that P.W.1 Malvika Mukherjee has stated that at 6 p.m. in the evening when she was in her house and her father-in-law was standing in the aangan, hearing hulla she came out and found her father-in-law in injured condition. On inquiry, he told her that Anjan Chatterjee had fired upon him. P.W.2 is the informant, Tulsi Das Mukherjee, who has stated in the court that on 1.8.1997 at 6 p.m. in the evening when he was standing outside the house in the lane; suddenly he received a bullet injury on his thigh and saw Anjan Chatterjee firing upon him. His bone was fractured and he was treated at T.M.H. He gave his fardbeyan to the police at T.M.H. which was read over to him and he signed the same. He has proved his signature marked as Ext.1. In para 2 he has stated that earlier also Anjan Chatterjee gave him threatening to commit his murder. In cross examination in para 3 he has stated that there was no light in the gully and nobody was present in the gully. In para 4 he has stated that had not given any fardbeyan at T.M.H. On the next date of occurrence his son gave a written report to the police. In cross examination in para 3 he has stated that there was no light in the gully and nobody was present in the gully. In para 4 he has stated that had not given any fardbeyan at T.M.H. On the next date of occurrence his son gave a written report to the police. Then police came to the hospital. The case was instituted on the report of his son. P.W.3, investigating officer has stated that on 1.8.1997 he was the officer in-charge of Adityapur police station and on 23.30 hrs he examined Tulsi Das Mukjerjee, informant at T.M.H. In cross examination he has stated that he had gone to T.M.H. on hearing rumour at 23.15 hrs and for which he had recorded a sanha and to verify the sanha he went to T.M.H where he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. He further stated during cross examination in para-4 that not a single witness told him about firing by the accused. P.W.5, doctor has found and proved injury on the thigh of the informant. He has stated in para 4 that the injury on the thigh of the informant was not caused by any fire arm. No bullet or pillet was recovered from the injury. 7. Thus, after going the entire prosecution evidences, I find that the evidence of the informant and that of the Investigating Officer are contradictory to each other. The informant stated in para 4 of his deposition that he had not given any statement to the police at T.M.H. on the date of occurrence i.e. on 1.8.1997 rather a written report was given by his son on the next day, but the F.I.R. shows that the fardbeyan was recorded on the date of occurrence itself i.e. on1.8.1997 at 22.45 hrs. while the formal F.I.R. shows that the information was received at the police station at 20.00 hrs i.e. 8 p.m. The investigating Officer in his examination has stated that he received some rumour that somebody has been fired upon on 23.15 hrs. but no sanha was proved. while the formal F.I.R. shows that the information was received at the police station at 20.00 hrs i.e. 8 p.m. The investigating Officer in his examination has stated that he received some rumour that somebody has been fired upon on 23.15 hrs. but no sanha was proved. Moreover, in the formal F.I.R., page-3, he has stated that the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the written complaint of the complainant which is the basis of the case which corroborate the statement of the informant in para 4 of his cross examination that his son had given the written report but, no such complaint has been proved by the prosecution. Moreover, the very genesis of the case that firing was done by the accused causing injury on the thigh of the informant seems doubtful, since the doctor, P.W.5 has categorically stated that the injury was not caused by fire arms. In that view of the matter, the entire prosecution story seems to be concocted and contradictory to each other. 8. In that view of the matter, the appellant, Anjan Chatterjee deserves benefit of doubt which is given to him and he is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Further, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.6.2009 passed by Shri Prabhu Nath Lal, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saraikella in Sessions Trial no. 155 of 1998 is set aside. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is on bail. Hence, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.