Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 109 (JHR)

Sirajuddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-19

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court.- This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.07.2003 and order of sentence dated 26.07.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III. Rajmahal in Sessions Case No. 202/01/Sessions Trial No. 11/02. convicting the appellant under Sections 302. IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2.000/- and in default to undergo three months imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the informant-Kuddus Ansari (PW 8) gave fardbeyan on 05.05.2000 at about 4.15 p.m. to the effect that when his son Jamaluddin (deceased) along with the appellant-Sirajuddin Ansari. Mumtaz Ansari (PW 11). Salimuddin (PW 3). Lekhan (PW 7). Munshi (PW 8) and other labourers were taking rest under the tree after taking meal on completion of menial work in the first half. the appellant suddenly assaulted the deceased by spade (Kudal) on his neck. as a result of which, he died on the spot. The other labourers tried to apprehend him, but he fled away throwing 'Kudaf. The villagers also assembled and chased him and ultimately, he was apprehended in his house and he was handed over to the village chowkidar who brought him to the police station. The cause of incident was that on the preceding day, there was dispute between the appellant and the deceased regarding the payment of toddy taken by them. 3. Mr. A.B. Mahato, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that nobody has seen the actual assault on the deceased and there are vital contradictions in the evidences specially with regard to the place from where the appellant was apprehended. He lastly submitted that at best the appellant could have been convicted under Section 304. IPC. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel for the State, supported the impugned judgment. 5. PW 1 is the doctor who conduct postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He found that the neck of the deceased was cut. The injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon-spade. 6. PW 2-Baijnath Hansda though not named in the FIR as an eyewitness, but was a charge sheet witness, He inter-alia stated that when the labourers including the appellant and the deceased were sleeping under the tree after taking meal on completion of menial work, he woke up on hearing some sound. The injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon-spade. 6. PW 2-Baijnath Hansda though not named in the FIR as an eyewitness, but was a charge sheet witness, He inter-alia stated that when the labourers including the appellant and the deceased were sleeping under the tree after taking meal on completion of menial work, he woke up on hearing some sound. He saw that the neck of the deceased was cut and the appellant was fleeing away. The appellant was chased, on which he entered into his house from where he was caught. The chowkidar of the village came and the appellant was handed over to him. The evidence of this witness has been fully, supported and corroborated with the evidence of the informant (PW 9). PWs 3,7,8 and 11. I.O. (PW 10) has also supported the prosecution case fully. 7. PW 4 has turned hostile. 8. PWs 5 and 6 are seizure list witnesses. 9. PW 12 is the brother of the chowkidar. 10. Defence has examined two witnesses taking the plea of alibi, but the learned trial Court has lightly disbelieved such plea. 11. Prosecution has been able to prove it's case beyond all, reasonable doubts and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs-1.2.3.7.8.9.10.11 and 12. Blood stained soil and spade were exhibited in this case. I.O. has denied that the signature of the seizure list witnesses were taken on the blank paper. There is no reason for false Implication of the appellant in this case. The appellant and the deceased are cousin brother and the informant is the father of the deceased. The prosecution case cannot be brushed aside on the minor discrepancy with regard to the place of apprehension of the deceased. The appellant had assaulted the deceased with sharp portion of spade on his neck due to which his neck was almost cut, In such a situation, it is not possible to hold that the appellant is guilty for the offence under Section 304, IPC only. 12. After carefully going through the records and hearing the parties at length, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant. 13. In the result this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.