Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2256 (JHR)

Rajesh Kachhap v. State of Jharkhand

2018-10-11

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2006 and 20.12.2006 respectively passed by the learned 18th Additional Judicial commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 594 of 2003 whereby the appellant was found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 25(I-a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 27 of the Arms Act. No punishment was awarded u/s 25 (I-a) of the Arms Act. The sentence awarded to the appellant was ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case as per fardbeyan of informant Prem Lata Minz, PW-1 wife of Late Niranjan Minz R/o Nayatoli, P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi recorded on 25.6.2003 at 20 hours at RIMS Emergency Ward, Ranchi, in brief is that on the alleged date at about 5:30 p.m. the informant was sitting with her husband and her two daughters Priti Lata Minz and Sanyogita Minz in her guest room. Then they heard the sound of motor cycle stopping in front of her house and saw accused Rajesh Kachhap and one unknown boy aged about 25-30 years on the motorcycle. Then accused Rajesh Kachhap came before her husband and inquired about the Buli (Aruna Toppo) upon which her husband said go and see her at upper floor and also inquired from the accused Rajesh Kachhap as to why he was searching Aruna, it is wrong. Then accused Rajesh went to the upper floor where Aruna used to reside and after ten minutes he came down with Aruna who left Rajesh Kachhap upto the gate and returned back. Thereafter Rajesh Kachhap said something to one unknown boy and both entered into her guest room. Accused Rajesh Kachhap armed with pistol opened fire upon the right parietal region of her husband as a result her husband fell down and blood oozed out. After the incidence both accused fled away but threw the pistol in the guest room itself. Thereafter, her husband was taken to RIMS, Ranchi where he was declared dead. Accused Rajesh Kachhap armed with pistol opened fire upon the right parietal region of her husband as a result her husband fell down and blood oozed out. After the incidence both accused fled away but threw the pistol in the guest room itself. Thereafter, her husband was taken to RIMS, Ranchi where he was declared dead. Lower Bazar Police had seized the fire arms from the guest room of the informant. 4. Accordingly FIR was lodged and was registered as Lower Bazar P.S. Case no. 85 of 2003 U/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and U/s 25 (1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act against the accused appellants. The police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet u/s 302/34 IPC and u/s 25 (1-B), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act. Cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Charges were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After the trial accused were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined altogether twelve witnesses. They are P.W.-1 Prem Lata Minz(informant), P.W. 2 Priti Lata Minz, P.W. 3 Sanyogita Minz, P.W.4 Kajal Lata Minz, P.W.5 Satish Ram, P.W.6 Amit Kachhap, P.W. 7 Som Michari, P.W. 8 Dr. A.K. Choudhary, P.W. 9 Rameshwar Mahto, advocate clerk, P.W. 10 Ashok Kumar Pathak, P.W. 11 Ravindra Nath Singh, P.W. 12 Sudama Yadav. 6. P.W.-1 Prem Lata Minz is the wife of deceased Niranjan Minz and informant of this case. She stated that the occurrence is of 25th June, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. She was in her house along with her husband Niranjan Minz (deceased) and daughters PW-2 Priti Lata Minz and PW-3 Sanyogita Minz. A motor cycle stopped near her house. They saw accused Rajesh Kachhap and one boy park the motorcycle and enter into the gate. Accused Rajesh Kachhap entered into the guest room and enquired about one Aruna Toppo @ Buli upon which her husband told him that to go up stairs and see her. Her husband also admonished him as to why he used to disturb him, upon which accused Rajesh Kachhap went to up stairs glaring angrily at him. Then he came down with Aruna who left him upto the gate and returned to the first floor. Her husband also admonished him as to why he used to disturb him, upon which accused Rajesh Kachhap went to up stairs glaring angrily at him. Then he came down with Aruna who left him upto the gate and returned to the first floor. Thereafter, accused Rajesh Kachhap came to the guest room armed with a country made pistol and opened fire upon the temporal region of her husband due to which he fell down and blood oozed out from his head. Then accused threw the pistol in the guest room and fled away from there. Thereafter deceased was taken to RIMS, Ranchi for treatment, where her fardbeyan was recorded by the police upon which she put her signature which had been marked Ext.1 She further deposed that accused Rajesh Kachhap used to come to her house which caused annoyance to the mohalla people and that is why they were making objection and then the accused had committed the alleged crime. Police had seized the pistol thrown by the accused. This witness had identified both the accused persons standing in the dock. In her cross-examination, at para 7 she admitted that place of occurrence is her maikey and she used to reside in the ground floor whereas her elder sister used to reside on the upper floor. In para 9 she had specifically stated that she knew accused Rajesh Kachhap for the last 2 and ½ years ago as he always used to visit the residence of her elder sister. She further deposed that she came to know after the occurrence that accused Rajesh Kachhap had performed court marriage with Aruna Toppo @ Buli, daughter of her elder sister. In para-11 she specifically stated that her husband was taken to RIMS, Ranchi after about 10 to 15 minutes along with mohalla people. In para 15 she had specifically stated that she made statement before police that the said unknown boy also used to accompany accused Rajesh Kachhap to her house but she had not named the said boy in her fardbeyan. 7. P.W.2, Priti Lata Minz is the daughter of deceased Niranjan Minz. She had claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence stating that the alleged occurrence took place on 25.6.2003 at about 5:30 p.m. She deposed that on the day of occurrence she was sitting in her guest room along with her parents and sister. 7. P.W.2, Priti Lata Minz is the daughter of deceased Niranjan Minz. She had claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence stating that the alleged occurrence took place on 25.6.2003 at about 5:30 p.m. She deposed that on the day of occurrence she was sitting in her guest room along with her parents and sister. She saw a motorcycle come and park near her house and the accused Rajesh Kachhap and one unknown boy stepped down. Accused Rajesh Kachhap entered in her guest room and asked about Buli @ Aruna upon which her father replied to go and see her on upper floor. She further deposed that accused Rajesh Kachhap went to the upper floor, all the while staring angrily at her father and after 10 minutes he came with Aruna and Aruna left Rajesh upto the gate and returned back. Thereafter accused Rajesh Kachhap came back with his associate and entered her guest room and opened fire upon right parietal region of her father due to which he fell down and blood oozed out. Thereafter Rajesh Kachhap threw the pistol and both of them fled away from the spot. She further deposed that they took away the injured to RIMS, Ranchi where he was declared dead. She further deposed that reason for the occurrence was the regular visit of accused Rajesh Kachhap to her house which was protested by her father. In her cross-examination at para 11 she has said that Aruna Toppo is her cousin sister who used to reside in the same house on the upper floor and the said house is of her maternal grandmother. In para 20 she has specifically stated that while her father was sitting on sofa the accused had fired shot upon him, and he fell down. In para 27 she has deposed that Kajal Lata Minz, PW-4 had informed at hospital that one pistol which was in the guest room was seized by police. 8. P.W. 3 Sanyogita Minz is the daughter of the deceased and an eye witness to the occurrence. She deposed that on the day of occurrence on 25.6.2003 at 5:30 p.m. she was sitting in her guest room along with PW-1 and PW-2. 8. P.W. 3 Sanyogita Minz is the daughter of the deceased and an eye witness to the occurrence. She deposed that on the day of occurrence on 25.6.2003 at 5:30 p.m. she was sitting in her guest room along with PW-1 and PW-2. She further deposed that she saw one black colour Yamaha motor cycle stop at her gate upon which accused Rajesh Kachhap stepped down and entered in her guest room and inquired about Aruna @ Buli upon which her father told him that as to why he disturbed them and go and see her on the upper floor. Accused Rajesh Kachhap went glaring angrily at her father and after 10 minutes he came down with Aruna. Aruna left him upto the gate and returned back. She further deposed that thereafter Rajesh Kachhap entered her guest room along with one unknown boy armed with pistol and opened fire on the right parietal region of her father. Consequently her father fell down and blood oozed out. The accused persons after throwing the pistol on the spot fled away from there. She further deposed that with the help of mohalla people they took her father to RIMS, Ranchi where he was declared dead. Later on police seized the said pistol. She identified the accused persons standing in the dock. In para 38 she has specifically stated that her father had sustained fire arm injury on his head as shot was fired on his temporal region but the alleged cartridge had not came outside of the head. 9. P.W.-4 Kajal Lata Minz is another daughter of the deceased. She had stated that on 25.6.2003 at about 5:30 p.m., she was studying in her bed-room and all of a sudden she heard the sound of gun firing from guest room, where her mother and other two sisters and her father were sitting. She has stated that she rushed to the guest room and found her father in injured condition and blood oozing out from his right parietal region. She came outside and saw two accused person sitting on a motorcycle and starting the bike, whom she had identified as accused Rajesh Kachhap and then he fled away. Thereafter, her father was carried to R.M.C.H., Ranchi where doctor declared him dead. Police arrived and seized the said pistol from the guest room. She came outside and saw two accused person sitting on a motorcycle and starting the bike, whom she had identified as accused Rajesh Kachhap and then he fled away. Thereafter, her father was carried to R.M.C.H., Ranchi where doctor declared him dead. Police arrived and seized the said pistol from the guest room. In her cross-examination at para -7 she deposed that she had not seen the occurrence. In para 8 she had specifically stated that the sound of firing was loud and as such on hearing said sound she went to the guest room within one minute. In para 17 she deposed that she knew accused Rajesh Kachhap from the last 2 to 2 ½ years as he used to visit her maternal cousin sister’s house and she had heard the name of said accused Rajesh Kachhap from her sister Aruna. In para 19 she has specifically admitted that Aruna Toppo @ Buli is her cousin sister and she has good relation with her but they are not in talking terms with them. Again in para 25 she had specifically stated that she made statement before the police that she can identify the accused who was driving the alleged motor cycle but police had not taken her to get them identified. 10. P.W.-5 Satish Rana is a hearsay witness. He deposed that on 25.6.2003 at 5:30 p.m. he was in his house. At the alleged time he heard the voice of weeping and crying as such he came outside of his house and entered into the room of deceased Niranjan Minz and saw that blood was oozing from his right parietal region. Then he carried him to hospital and returned back. 11. P.W.-6 Amit Kachhap deposed that on 25.6.2003 at about 5:30 p.m. he was in his house and on hearing cry he went to the house of Niranjan Minz where he saw that Niranjan Minz (deceased) had sustained fire arm injury on his right parietal region and blood was oozing out. Thereafter wife of deceased told to arrange a vehicle to carry her husband to the hospital. Thereafter he called Satish Rana (PW-5) with a vehicle who carried the deceased to hospital. After some time police arrived there and recovered the pistol from the guest room which was seized and seizure list was prepared upon which he put his signature marked as Ext. 1/1. Thereafter he called Satish Rana (PW-5) with a vehicle who carried the deceased to hospital. After some time police arrived there and recovered the pistol from the guest room which was seized and seizure list was prepared upon which he put his signature marked as Ext. 1/1. In para 4 he deposed that police had seized pistol in his presence and the same was shown to him but police had not obtained signature on seized articles whereas police had obtained his signature on the seizure list. He further deposed that he had seen the empty cartridge but he cannot say the number and making of said cartridge. He had seen blood spot on the wall which was not in a position to be seized. 12. PW-7, Som Michari is a seizure list witness. He deposed that he heard about the alleged occurrence by some persons. Thereafter he went to the house of deceased Niranjan Minz and saw he was murdered and he was lying on sofa and blood was oozing from his right parietal region. He further deposed that Satish Rana (PW-5) had taken the deceased to the hospital. Thereafter police reached there and seized pistol in his presence. He has proved his signature on seizure list which has been marked as Ext. ½. 13. P.W.-8 is Dr. A.K.Choudhary who had conducted postmortem examination of the dead-body of the deceased. He stated that on 26.6.2003 while he was posted as Tutor in Forensic Medicine Department of RIMS, Ranchi on the alleged date at about 10:30 hours he conducted the postmortem examination of the dead-body of Niranjan Minz (deceased) and found one fire arm injury having wound of entrance 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. over right fronto perital region with tattoing 18 c.m. x 12 c.m. area over frontal, right side of face and adjoining lateral side of right shoulder top. He had opined that the injury was antemortem and caused by fire arm and the death was between 3 to 18 hours from the time of postmortem examination. He had proved the post-mortem report which is in his writing and signature marked Ext.2. 14. P.W.-9 Rameshwar Mahto is an advocate clerk who stated that the sanction report related to Lower Bazar P.S. case no. 85 of 2003 was issued by the legal section of the Ranchi Collectariate by order of the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi Dr. Pradeep Kumar. He had proved the post-mortem report which is in his writing and signature marked Ext.2. 14. P.W.-9 Rameshwar Mahto is an advocate clerk who stated that the sanction report related to Lower Bazar P.S. case no. 85 of 2003 was issued by the legal section of the Ranchi Collectariate by order of the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi Dr. Pradeep Kumar. He has identified the sanction order of prosecution which is marked as Ext. 3. 15. P.W.-10 Ashok Kumar Pathak is surgeant Major. He deposed that on 19.7.2003 while he was posted at police line, Ranchi as a surgeant major, on that day he examined one country made pistol and one cartridge of .315 bore related to Lower Bazar P.S. case no. 85 of 2003. The length of barrel of the country made pistol was 13.5 c.m. and the length of butt from body was 13 c.m. He has also stated that he has examined its parts and firing system which were in order. He has proved the test report which is marked as Ext.4. 16. P.W.-11 Ravindra Nath Singh is the investigating officer of this case. He has stated that on 25.6.2003 while he was posted at Lower Bazar Police Station as officer-in-charge he recorded the fardbeyan of Prem Lata Minz (PW-1) in Emergency Ward of RIMS, Ranchi. He identified the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.4 which was later on corrected as Ext.8. He further deposed that he went to the place of occurrence and found a gathering in front of the house of deceased Niranjan Minz and he was accordingly informed about the occurrence. He had seized country made pistol and cartridge which was used in the said crime and seized the same in front of two independent witnesses and prepared the seizure list which was marked as Ext-7.He has proved the inquest report of the dead-body of the deceased which was marked as Ext.5. He has also proved formal FIR of Lower Bazar P.S. case no. 85 of 2003 dated 25.6.2003 marked as Ext.-6. He further deposed that he took up the investigation of the case. He had also proved the chalan of the dead body marked as Ext.9.Thereafter he filed a petition to the S.D.O. to depute a magistrate to record the statement of accused Rajesh Kachhap marked as Ext.10. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted by him. He further deposed that he took up the investigation of the case. He had also proved the chalan of the dead body marked as Ext.9.Thereafter he filed a petition to the S.D.O. to depute a magistrate to record the statement of accused Rajesh Kachhap marked as Ext.10. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted by him. In para 20 he admitted that he had not recorded the statement of Aruna Toppo. 17. P.W.-12 Sudama Yadav is a constable. He has stated that as per order of Naresh Prasad Singh, Officer-in-charge he brought the seized pistol and cartridge of Lower Bazar P.S. case no. 85 of 2003.The said seized pistol and cartridge is marked as material Ext. I and Ext. I/2 respectively. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT: 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that in this case PW-1 to PW-3 claimed to be eye witnesses. However, they are all interested witnesses because they belong to the family of the deceased. PW-4 is also a member of the same family, however she is not an eye witness. PW-5, 6 and 7 are hearsay witnesses as they have not seen the occurrence.PW-8 is Dr. A.K.Choudhary who conducted post-mortem. PW-9 is an advocate clerk and is a formal witness. Pw-10 Ashok Kumar Pathak is a seargent major who has given his opinion regarding the pistol which was seized. PW-11 Ravindra Nath Singh is the investigating officer and had also recorded the fard-beyan and PW-12 Sudama Yadav is a constable. 19. Learned counsel has given a brief over view of the prosecution witnesses by referring to the individual deposition and pointing to certain paragraphs which he considered of relevance. Referring to PW-1 who is Prem Lata Minz the informant, he has pointed out paragraph Nos. 7,8 and 9 of her deposition and submitted that place of occurrence is her maike which is a double storied building and she lives in the ground floor and her elder sister lives in the top floor. Her brothers had passed away. She has further deposed that her husband used to work at Bhagalpur in the Finance Audit Department and he had constructed a house in Chutia. She has further deposed that she knew accused Rajesh Kachhap from about two to two & half years and that he used to visit her elder sister. Her brothers had passed away. She has further deposed that her husband used to work at Bhagalpur in the Finance Audit Department and he had constructed a house in Chutia. She has further deposed that she knew accused Rajesh Kachhap from about two to two & half years and that he used to visit her elder sister. After the incident, she had come to know that accused Rajesh Kachhap had performed court marriage with Aruna Toppo @ Buli, daughter of her elder sister. She further deposed that establishment of both sisters are separate. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is apparent that both sisters were living in the house of their mother and after the death of their brother they continued to live there. Both of them have separate establishment and apparently they were peeved by Rajesh kachhap coming to meet Aruna Toppo daughter of the elder sister even though she was married to Rajesh Kachhap. 20. Learned counsel submitted that PW-2 Priti Lata Minz is the daughter of informant. She has deposed the cause of the incidence is that Rajesh Kachhap used to come to their house very frequently. Her father used to object the same.They did not like his coming. She had further deposed at para 11 that Aruna Toppo is her cousin sister (mauseri) and she lives on the top floor. Her mama does not stay in the house because he had passed away. Her mami does not live in the house. Her father was in service and he had constructed his own house in Chutia. In paragraph No. 15 she had deposed that after hearing the gun shot and hulla, mohalla people such as Saroj Kachhap, Amit Kachhap, Satish Rana and others had reached there. In paragraph no. 18 she has deposed that her mama had committed suicide but she does not know why he had done so. Her mami resides in the house of her maternal grandfather (nana) at Jamshedpur. In paragraph no. 21 she has pointed out that Rajesh Kachhap used to come to visit her mausi. At para 23 she said that she is not aware of the fact that they have contracted court marriage, but after the occurrence she came to know about it through the police. At para 27 she said that she never spoke to Rajesh Kachhap. She never went out with Aruna Toppo and Rajesh Kachhap. At para 23 she said that she is not aware of the fact that they have contracted court marriage, but after the occurrence she came to know about it through the police. At para 27 she said that she never spoke to Rajesh Kachhap. She never went out with Aruna Toppo and Rajesh Kachhap. In paragraph no. 30 she deposed that they did not like Rajesh Kachhap visiting because he used to come at odd times. In para 34 she denied that her family were having eyes on the house. In paragraph 38 she deposed that she does not know as to when and where the inquest report of her father was prepared. The vest and lungi which her father was wearing was seized by the police but she can not say from where it was seized. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that from the evidence of PW-2 it is evident that the house in which they were living belongs to their mama (uncle) but as he was no longer and his wife was in Jamshedpur therefore the two sisters were living there with separate establishment and it is very strange that some tension occurred particularly when Rajesh Kachhap was often visiting Aruna Toppo who happens to be the wife of Rajesh Kachhap and therefore he had every reason to visit her. So this was totally a wrong reason to be aggravated about on the part of the informant and her family. Learned counsel further submits that Rajesh Kachhap regularly used to visit Aruna Toppo and they were already in marital relationship then how the informant family cannot have known that the couple were married from before rather they have suppressed this knowledge. However, it is apparent from paragraph no.s 27 and 30 they were not in good terms and there was sufficient reasons for dispute and there is every possibility of wrongful implication of the appellant. 21. Learned counsel submitted that PW-3 Sanyogita Minz is also a daughter of the informant. She deposed in para-8 that she does not know where Rajesh Kachhap lives and what is his father’s name. She further deposed that it is not so that her father used to object to Rajesh Kachhap. At para 10 she said that when her father told Rajesh Kachhap that why do you regularly harass then he glared at her father angrily. She further deposed that it is not so that her father used to object to Rajesh Kachhap. At para 10 she said that when her father told Rajesh Kachhap that why do you regularly harass then he glared at her father angrily. Her mausi’s name is Mery Kujur and they are not on visiting terms with her mausi and even with her cousin Aruna Toppo. At para 12 she has further deposed that she came to know about court marriage between Rajesh and Aruna after the incidence through Lower Bazar Police. At para 20 she further deposed that there was blood stain on her clothes but police had not seized her clothes. Her father was taken to hospital and got admitted in emergency ward. She had not called her elder uncle (Bare papa) Oliver Minz whose house is near to her house and they had not conveyed the news of the said incidence to him. In para 25 she deposed that the police had not seized the pistol in her presence. Learned counsel further submitted that deposition of PW-3 is similar to PW-1 and PW-2 in the sense that even from her evidence it is apparent that relationship between the two sisters is not at all cordial because of dispute over property. She had also suppressed the knowledge of court marriage though she also recognized Rajesh Kachhap because he used to visit regularly. This witness had referred to her elder uncle Oliver Minz who had not been examined. 22. Learned counsel submitted that PW-4 is Kajal Lata Minz is another daughter of informant. In para 7 she had deposed that she had not seen the assault by bullet with her own eyes. Learned counsel further submitted that this witness is a hearsay witness and her evidence is not credible. 23. Learned counsel submitted that PW-5 is one Satish Rana and PW-6 is Amit Kachhap and they are neighbors. They have deposed that on hearing the sound of weeping they reached at the place of occurrence and saw that there was blood flowing from the right temporal region of deceased Niranjan Minz and he had fallen on sofa. Then PW-5 Satish Rana took him to the hospital in a vehicle and returned back. PW-6 proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Ext. 1/1. Apart from these they know nothing. Then PW-5 Satish Rana took him to the hospital in a vehicle and returned back. PW-6 proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Ext. 1/1. Apart from these they know nothing. Learned counsel said that they are hearsay witness and their evidence cannot be believed. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the court has to see that the case against the appellant is proved beyond any doubt. There are many reasons why the prosecution case can be faulted. First that there is a serious family tension between the parties into which Rajesh Kachhap had married with the daughter of the elder sister of the informant. From the evidence of the various prosecution witnesses it is evident that they were simply living in the same house but there was no interaction between them. In fact in can be said that relationship between the two sisters was totally bitter and therefore the bitterness had spread amongst the respective family members. In this light Rajesh Kachhap who then enters into the picture through marriage with Aruna Toppo who is the daughter of elder sister of the informant met with the same bitterness and lack of cordiality, even though he had married Aruna Toppo. It is not possible that the informant as well as the family members or her daughters were not aware of the marriage of Aruna Toppo and Rajesh Kachhap because after marriage the behavior of a married couple is different and is more evident more so in a country like India where before marriage relationships are constrained. They concealed this information only to make out a case that Rajesh Kachhap had no legitimate reason for visiting Aruna Toppo. If Aruna Toppo was married to Rajesh Kachhap then the informant and her family members would have no reason whatsoever to prevent the visiting of Rajesh Kachhap to Aruna Toppo. Such behavior was itself wrong on the part of the informant and her family members. Therefore, the suppression of knowledge of the marriage by the informant and her family members creates some doubt that they were harboring some ill feeling also against Rajesh Kachhap because of the bitterness that was already prevalent between two families. Such behavior was itself wrong on the part of the informant and her family members. Therefore, the suppression of knowledge of the marriage by the informant and her family members creates some doubt that they were harboring some ill feeling also against Rajesh Kachhap because of the bitterness that was already prevalent between two families. He further submitted that actually property did not belong to the two sisters but the actual claimant would have been their mama (deceased), however then his wife who was living in Jamshedpur. In this scenario, the property was available to those who were living there and due to the marriage of Rajesh Kachhap with Aruna Toppo and his frequent visit, the informant and her family ultimately got disturbed. It also revealed in the evidence of the witnesses that informant’s husband had his own house at Chutia and they have no reason to live in the current house. Further it has not been revealed that the elder sister of the informant had any house at any place, which shows that house in which her elder sister was living was the only place that was available to her and therefore marriage of Rajesh Kachhap with Aruna Toppo might have been threatening, particularly when they already had a house in Chutia. So this disputed property was leading to tensions between the families and there is every reason for implicating the appellant in this case. 25. Learned counsel argued that there was delay in sending the FIR to Court and this delay was only for the manufacturing of the case against the appellant and the other accused. To substantiate argument regarding delay he has cited a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Singh reported in (2001)3 SCC 147 . Counsel has argued that even a delay of a holiday is not allowed and in this case there has been delay in sending the FIR to the court and therefore the benefit of delay accrues to the appellant. 26. Learned counsel further argued that the investigation was very faulty as Oliver Minz and even Mery Kujur the elder sister of the informant were not examined. 26. Learned counsel further argued that the investigation was very faulty as Oliver Minz and even Mery Kujur the elder sister of the informant were not examined. This is a major lacunae in this case because she is the elder sister living just on the top floor of the place of occurrence and it is her own daughter who got married with the appellant and there is absolutely no reason why she was not produced as witness and no explanation was given for the same. However, her non-examination only prejudices the appellant because being the mother-in-law of the appellant she could have given evidence in favour of the appellant and therefore, the prosecution deliberately did not make her witness and therefore malafide investigation is fully made out and the benefit of such malafide investigation should be given to the appellant. Counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hasan Murtza Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2002) 3 SCC 1 . Counsel further submitted that investigation officer did not even seize samples of the blood or stained clothes or even the map of the place of occurrence was not prepared and hence, those were not produced in court. Counsel had also argued that even no forensic report is available regarding any blood or blood stained clothes which also creates doubt. ARGUMETNS ON BEHALF OF STATE-APP 27. Learned counsel for the State-APP has argued that the delay which counsel has argued is inconsequential and it is not delay, in fact there is no delay. He said that occurrence is of 25.6.2003 and on the next day the post mortem was conducted and then only post mortem report was prepared. However it was sent to the court itself on 26.6.2003, however since it was morning court wherein the court functions early in the morning till midday. The court was only able to see the fardbeyan on the next day i.e. 27.6.2003 and therefore the delay which the appellant tried to make out is actually not delay at all. However it was sent to the court itself on 26.6.2003, however since it was morning court wherein the court functions early in the morning till midday. The court was only able to see the fardbeyan on the next day i.e. 27.6.2003 and therefore the delay which the appellant tried to make out is actually not delay at all. Learned APP further submitted that in this case there is not only one eye witness rather there are three eye witnesses who are PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 who have seen the occurrence with their own eyes and their evidences are totally credible and cannot be disbelieved and only on the evidence of these three witnesses the conviction can be upheld. He further submits that PW-8 the doctor had opined that cause of death was due to fire arm injury which has also been corroborated by ocular evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. Learned counsel further submitted that PW-4 is another daughter of the informant who deposed that she came immediately at the place of occurrence and saw Rajesh Kachhap and therefore her evidence also cannot be discarded rather it corroborates that at least after the firing accused fled away from the scene of crime. He also submitted that Aruna Toppo, wife of the appellant could have been made a defence witness by Rajesh Kachhap but he did not make her a defence witness. Moreover, the country made pistol used in commission of offence was unlicensed which shows that Rajesh Kachhap was also engaged in criminal activities and even the present incident is a direct result of this background. Regarding suppression of knowledge of marriage, learned counsel submits that their marriage was not publicly made rather they had performed court marriage. He further submitted that there was a property dispute and if he was the legitimate husband then he had every possibility of also residing in the same house. Though the family had their own house in Chutia there was vested interest of the appellant in the property in which both the sisters were living. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below deserves to be upheld. FINDINGS: 28. Based on the records of the case, evidence and arguments, the following is thus concluded: PW-1 Prem Lata Minz is the wife of deceased and witness to assault and informant. She had supported her fardbeyan. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below deserves to be upheld. FINDINGS: 28. Based on the records of the case, evidence and arguments, the following is thus concluded: PW-1 Prem Lata Minz is the wife of deceased and witness to assault and informant. She had supported her fardbeyan. She has also in her deposition mentioned the presence of two of her daughters PW-2 and PW-3 at the time of occurrence. In her fardbeyan she had stated that she was sitting in the guest room with her family. In her fardbeyan she had stated that police had seized the fire arm which was also corroborated by her evidence. She knew Rajesh Kachhap from before as he was an unwanted frequent visitor to the place. Though she did not know his name. PW-2 Priti Lata Minz and PW-3 Sanyogita Minz are daughters of PW-1 Prem Lata Minz and also eye witnesses to the occurrence. They have deposed that firing was done by Rajesh Kachhap. They have corroborated the evidence given by PW-1 the informant. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and Pw-3 are those of eye witnesses and thoroughly reliable. 29. PW-4 Kajal Lata Minz is a hearsay witness as she had heard the sound of firing and rushed to the place of occurrence within one minute, gone outside and seen the appellant along with another accused starting a bike. She recognized the accused. P.W.-6 Amit Kachhap is also a hearsay witness as on hearing alarm, he reached the place of occurrence and saw the deceased in a pool of blood. He is a witness leading to seizure of pistol used in the offence and he put his signature on the seizure list, marked as Ext.1/1. PW-7 Som Michari is also a seizure list witness. He has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Ext. ½. PW-4 and PW-6 may not be eye witnesses but they reached immediately on the scene and their evidence is supportive of prosecution case regarding occurrence. 30. PW-8 Dr. A.K. Choudhary conducted post mortem and found one fire arm wound entrance on the right frontal parietal region which is about 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. with tattooing of 18 cm x 12 cm area over frontal right side of face. He had given opinion that injury was result of fire arm. 31. 30. PW-8 Dr. A.K. Choudhary conducted post mortem and found one fire arm wound entrance on the right frontal parietal region which is about 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. with tattooing of 18 cm x 12 cm area over frontal right side of face. He had given opinion that injury was result of fire arm. 31. PW-9 Rameshwar Mahto, identified the sanction order of prosecution issued by Ranchi Collectariate and which was marked as Ext.3. PW-10 Ashok Kumar Pathak, surgeant Major, had deposed that he examined parts of the pistol and one cartridge and gave opinion that the firing system was in order. PW-11 Ravindra Nath Singh, the investigating officer proved the fardbeyan. He had inspected the place of occurrence and made seizure of the country made pistol and cartridge and prepared seizure list marked as Ext.7. He also proved inquest reports Ext.5 and formal FIR Ext.6. 32. Based on the evidence of the eye witnesses, the other supportive witnesses the seizure list witness, the sergeant major and investigating officer, the conviction of the appellant by the trial court is not vulnerable to be set aside on any grounds. Therefore, judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2006 and order of sentence dated 20.12.2006 passed by learned 18th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. no. 594 of 2003 is upheld. 33. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.