NARAYAN MANDAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the state.

(2.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 31.3.2000 and order of sentence dated 1.4.2000 passed by Sri Dhruv Narayan Upadhyay, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 518 of 1989 by which judgment all the three appellants were found guilty Under Section 376/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo S.I for one month.

(3.) It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the prosecution case is false and fabricated. There is admitted enmity and land dispute between the parties from before and it will be apparent from the evidences of the witnesses as also from the F.I.R (Ext.3) that the occurrence took place at 4 p.m. on 6.8.1989, but it was reported on the next day at 16.00 hrs i.e. at 4.00 p.m. and this delay of 24 hours has not been explained by the prosecution. Moreover, it will also appear from the F.I.R itself in column No. 3 that the F.I.R was admittedly sent to the court by special messenger, but the same reached the court of C.J.M and signed by the C.J.M on 10.8.1989, after two days. The two vital days delay made by the prosecution makes out the entire prosecution case false and, fabricated. Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision reported in the Case of Ishwar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1976 CrLJ 1883. It is further submitted that independent witnesses of the village has also not supported the prosecution case and according to the independent witnesses only some scuffle took place between the victim-P.W. 7, Yasoda Devi and female members of the accused persons, but the same was distorted and real F.I.R was not produced in the court. In that view of the matter, prosecution case is full of doubts and conviction of appellants are bad in law and fit to be set aside.