SIRAJUL SHEIKH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the original accused No. 1 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27th July, 2001 and 30th July, 2001 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Trial No. 243 of 1999) 44 of 1999, whereby, the present Appellant -accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 312 to be read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life The present Appellant -accused has further been convicted for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) IF the case of the prosecution is unfolded the same is as under:

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for both sides at length and perused the records and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 243 of 1999. It has been mainly submitted by the counsel for the Appellant that there are lot of omissions and contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. There was no intention on the part of the present Appellant accused to murder of the deceased. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the whole incident has taken place out of hot altercation between the informant and his brothers and the accused side persons. In fact, there is only one injury upon the deceased which is fatal in nature as per medical evidence given by P.W.7 Dr. Ram Jeevan Prasad, who has carried out postmortem note of deceased Taimuddin Sheikh and, therefore also there is no intention en the part of the Appellant -accused to cause murder of the deceased. The Appellant -accused is in jail since 1999. More than ten years he has remained in jail and therefore, alternatively, it is submitted by the counsel for the Appellant that at best the Appellant is liable to be punished for the offence of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder for ten years instead of Section 302 I.P.C. because thee is no motive on the part of the Appellant to cause murder of the deceased.