PANDU DIGGI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 4th August, 2003 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2003/ S.T.R. No. 02 of 2003, convicting the appellant for committing the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life. The prosecution case, in short, is that Selay Samad (PW-3) lodged his fardbeyan on 08/11/2002 at about 22.35 hours before police to the effect that at about 4 P.M., on that day the appellant came and called his father Bir Singh Samad (the deceased) from the house and when he came out, the appellant inflicted dagger injury in his abdomen due to which he was grievously injured and fell on the ground. On alarm, his mother PW-1 came out from the house and saw the father lying on the ground. The appellant fled away saying that he has inflicted chhura blow in the abdomen of the father of the informant. The informant further said that the appellant inflicted such injury with intention to kill his father. He further said that the deceased used to go for drinking liquor in the house of the appellant, where about 15 days back there was quarrel between them on which the appellant threatened him for dire consequences.

(2.) Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as Amicus Curiae relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court (Gurdip Singh-versus- State of Punjab, 1987 AIR(SC) 1151)' submitted that in the F.I.R. and in the evidences of the witnesses, different motives have come for the alleged occurrence and, therefore, the motive is doubtful and at best the conviction under Section 304 Part-II could have been awarded. He further submitted that there are several discrepancies in the prosecution case. He also submitted that it is a case of single blow and there was no repetition of blow. He lastly submitted that the appellant is aged about 75 years and he is in jail custody for about nine years by now.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned APP supported the impugned judgment.