Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 842 (JHR)

Matlu Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2012-06-19

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT Both these appeals arise from the common incident but from different judgments. Cr. Appeal No.1575/03 arises from the judgment dated 4.9.2003 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 273 of 2001/37 of 2003 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life. 2. Cr. Appeal No.117 of 2008 arises from the judgment dated 30th November, 2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T.No.273(A)/2001 convicting the appellant under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that P.W. 3 (Md. Nijamuddin Ansari) lodged his Fard Bayan on 7.6.2001 at about 9 a.m. before the police that he along with his father Ahmad Ansari (deceased) and cousin Ajimul Ansari (P.W.2) were going to plough their field. When Ahmad Ansari started ploughing the field, the appellants surrounded him having 'Tangi' in their hands. Appellant-Matlu Singh inflicted 'Tangi' blow on the neck of Ahmad Ansari due to which he could not run and fell down then other appellants started inflicting 'Tangi' blows. The informant was afraid and raised alarm on which the villagers assembled. Some of the villagers have seen the appellants inflicting injuries. The motive of alleged incident was that the appellants had suspicion that the informant party used to elope the cattle. 4. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses. P.W. 1,2 & 3 are projected as eyewitnesses but P.W. 1 in paragraph No.17 clearly said that he along with P.W. 2, 3 & 6 saw the appellants fleeing away from the place of occurrence from the distance of about 100 yards. 5. After carefully examining the evidences on record, it is not possible to believe that P.W. 1, 2 & 3 are the eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence. According to the informant, P.W. 1 & 3 went to the Police Station and lodged F.I.R. but no such F.I.R. has been brought on record. There are other material contradictions also in the evidence of the witnesses. It has also come on record that the deceased was involved in some criminal cases. There are material variations in the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 & 3 regarding their presence at the place of occurrence and these evidences are also at variance with the evidence of I.O. (P.W. 4). 6. It has also come on record that the deceased was involved in some criminal cases. There are material variations in the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 & 3 regarding their presence at the place of occurrence and these evidences are also at variance with the evidence of I.O. (P.W. 4). 6. After hearing the parties at length and going through the record carefully, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellants. Accordingly, judgments impugned in both the appeals are set aside. 7. The appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.