SUNIRAM MARANDI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 2.9.2002 and order of sentence dated 3.9.2002 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2001, convicting the appellants under Sections 302 and 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life. The prosecution case in short is as follows: Seeman Tudu-informant (PW-6) lodged a fardbeyan on 8.11.2000 at about 2.00 PM that at about 9.00 PM when he was in his house alongwith his mother-Kuleen Hansda (deceased) and sister-Maarinila Tudu (PW-3), both the appellants came there and asked for liquor. The deceased gave them one bottle of liquor. Thereafter, the accused persons were consuming it. While they were drinking, the deceased saw pistol of appellant no. 1-Suniram Marandi. The appellants warned her not say about the pistol to anybody. The deceased told them why they were roaming with pistol. The appellants started going away without paying for liquor. The deceased stopped them for money. The appellants caught her. The appellant no. 1-Suniram Marandi inserted the pistol in the mouth of the deceased and fired due to which, she fell and died. The informant (PW-6) and PW-3 wanted to apprehend the appellants but the appellants aimed pistol on them. The appellants fled away towards the jungle. It is lastly alleged that due to demand for payment of liquor, the appellants killed the deceased by pistol.

(2.) Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment on various grounds, submitted as follows: The prosecution has not been able to prove the genesis of the case. In other words, nothing has been recovered from the place of occurrence to show that the deceased used to prepare and sell liquor. The blood stained soil, weapon and pillets were not seized and sent for chemical analysis. Due to enmity, the appellants have been falsely implicated. The investigation is perfunctory. As per the prosecution witnesses, one gun-shot injury was made, whereas two injuries were found by the doctor in the post mortem report. All the witnesses are interested witnesses. The appellant no. 1 has remained in jail for about 11 years and appellant no. 2 has remained in jail for about 5 years. He relied on 2012(1) JCR 140, 2011 SC 1736, 2003(3) JLJR 138(DB) and ,: 1998(2) PLJR 571 in support of his argument.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted as follows: The prosecution is consistent from the stage of FIR, till the stage of evidence in court. PWs-3, 5 and 6 are eye witnesses. Their version has been fully supported with the other material evidence brought on record including the medical evidence. In the facts and circumstances of this case, even if there was some lacuna in the investigation, the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside on that ground. He relied on ,:DHANAJ SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB, 2004 3 SCC 654.