SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7.4.2003 passed by Sri P.C. Agarwal, Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 2002 whereby the appellants have been held guilty for offences under Sections 302 /34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) each. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant Santosh Kumar Jaiswal (PW-6) lodged fardbeyan with the Police on 1.2.2011 at about 7.00 a.m. that at about 5.30 A.M. when his father Hari Shankar Prasad Jaiswal (deceased) was going on a bicycle to attend his duty, he heard sound of firing from eastern side of the quarters near the hydrant (chapakal). The father of the informant was running raising alarms to save his life as the appellants were chasing to kill him. The informant and others saw from the window that the father of the informant was running towards the quarters followed by the appellants having pistols in their hands. Then, one more fire shot was done by the appellant Arun Sharma. The informant and others rushed to the ground floor and saw that the appellant Sanjay Sharma shot at the back of the father of the informant. The informant and others tried to apprehend the appellants, but they fled away. It was further alleged that in the month of May, 2000 brother of one the appellants was killed and it was suspected that the brother of the Informant Bhola Kumar Jaiswal (PW-7) was involved in that case in which PW-7 had come out of Jail about two months before and thereafter the appellant Sanjay Kumar Sharma used to call him but he refused. Sanjay Kumar Sharma appellant also asked PW-7 to kill a person which was denied by him. It was suspected that for this reason father of the informant was killed by the appellants.

(2.) On the basis of the said fardbeyan of the informant (PW-6), Jagamathpur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2001 was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants who faced the trial and were convicted as aforesaid.

(3.) Mr. B.N. Jha, learned counsel for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds and submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the eye witnesses projected by the prosecution are not the eye witnesses and their evidence is not cogent, convincing and trustworthy and the appellants have remained in jail for more than 11 years and they deserve benefit of doubt.