DHIRENDRA SINGH @ PAPPU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1324 of 2005, by which the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein-original accused and has confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Court convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the original accused No. 2 has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case in nutshell was that one Suraj Mandal - P.W.27 gave the Fardbeyan recorded at Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur on 08.08.1987 at 12.15 hours. The case of the prosecution was that the informant along with one Nirmal Mahto (the deceased) and others reached Jamshedpur in the previous night at about 10.30 p.m. and stayed at TISCO Guest House. They had come for attending the last rites of mother of one Avtar Singh Tari. On 08.08.1987 at about 11.45 a.m., they along with some other persons came out of the guest house for going to the house of Avtar Singh Tari. Some other persons also came there, who were also to go to the house of Avtar Singh. In the meantime, one car bearing No. DEA-2544 came there and five persons alighted from it. The informant asked Nirmal Mehto as to who they were, whereupon he told that two of them were Pandit and Pappu, who were brothers of Birendra Singh. Pandit went inside the guest house and came out along with his brother Birendra Singh and they started talking amongst themselves. In the meantime, Birendra Singh fired from firearm upon Nirmal Mehto, which hit him and he fell down. Pandit also assaulted Nirmal Mehto by firearm from behind and he again fired firearm injuring the informant also. The case was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302/307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On the basis of the Fardbeyan given by the informant, the FIR was registered. The investigation was subsequently taken up by the CBI and upon investigation the CBI submitted the charge-sheet against the apprehended accused Birendra Singh, showing the appellant and others to be absconders. That Birendra Singh came to be tried in a separate sessions' trial and he came to be convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC. Subsequently, he died during the pendency of his appeal in the High Court. After a period of 13 to 15 years, the appellant and one another surrendered/were arrested. Therefore, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and one another. As the case was triable by the learned Court of Session, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Court. The appellant and one another came to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, as they pleaded not guilty.

(3.) To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined 35 witnesses and also brought on record several documentary evidences through the aforesaid witnesses. Suraj Mandal-informant who was an injured eye-witness came to be examined as P.W.27. One Md. Akhtar Hussain and Nirmal Bhattacharya, who were also the eye-witnesses to the incident, came to be examined as P.W.7 and P.W.8 respectively. The prosecution also examined the doctor who performed the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased as well as who examined the injured Suraj Mandal. On conclusion of the trial, learned Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.