Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 596 (JHR)

Anarul Sk v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-05

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction nd sentence passed on 17th June 2002 by Sri Jagarnath Mishra, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1998/ 43 of 1998, whereby the sole Appellant has been found guilty for committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, thereby, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. He has also been convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 years on that account. However, both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: Informant PW-8, wife of Lutfut Sk (deceased) gave statement at about 11.00 P.M., in the night on 20/05/1998 to the effect that at about 7.15 p.m., when she was sitting in her house alongwith her husband, one of the accused Mofizuddin called her husband from outside. Her husband went outside of his house. She followed him. The accused took him to a distance of about 150 yards on road. She stood at some distance from where she saw that all the accused persons including this Appellant and some other persons were standing there. The other accused persons ordered to kill her husband and then this Appellant through a pistol fired at him. Her husband cried for help and then she also cried and ran towards her husband. On the sound of fire Nasiruddin Sk (PW-3) and Abdul Alim (PW-1) and one Shanto came running at the spot and, thereafter, the miscreants fled away. Her husband died at the spot. She further said that her husband has been killed due to dispute between her husband and the accused persons for throwing Moram (red soil) at the side of her husband's house. The other accused persons have been acquitted giving benefit of doubt and the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Mr. D.K. Prasad, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular evidence of PW-8, i.e. the informant. He further submitted that no blood stain was found at the place of occurrence, which appears to be wholly unnatural and, therefore, the prosecution has not proved the place of occurrence also. 4. On the other hand, Mr. He submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular evidence of PW-8, i.e. the informant. He further submitted that no blood stain was found at the place of occurrence, which appears to be wholly unnatural and, therefore, the prosecution has not proved the place of occurrence also. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned APP supported the impugned judgment. 5. PWs. 1 and 3, named in the FIR, had seen the Appellant and other persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. Pws. 2, 4,5 and 6 are hearsay and relatives. PW-7 is the Doctor, who conducted Post Mortem. PW-8 is the wife-cum-informant, who followed the deceased as per the prosecution case and saw the occurrence. PW-9 is the Investigating Officer. 6. We are not convinced with the submissions of Mr. Prasad that the ocular evidence of PW-8 is not corroborated with the medical evidence. It appears from the evidence of the Doctor that nothing was asked from him in the cross-examination as to whether the injuries found, were possible by a firearms, said to have been used by the Appellant. In our opinion, the medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular evidence of FW-8, i.e. the informant. Admittedly, there were some dispute between the parties. There is nothing to show that there was any reason to falsely implicate the Appellant in the alleged occurrence. Nothing could be shown as to why the prosecution witnesses should be disbelieved. 7. We are also not satisfied with the submission of Mr. Prasad, that the place of occurrence has not been proved. It has come in the evidence that a good amount of blood was found inside the body of the deceased. It is not necessary that blood stain soil has to be found in all the cases of injuries. It is true that other accused persons have been acquitted giving benefit of doubt, but so far as Appellant is concerned there is direct and clear materials against him and, therefore, in our opinion the trial court has rightly convicted the Appellant for the offence under Sections 302 Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. Accordingly, by affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against this Appellant, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.