MUMTAZ ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the judgement of conviction dated 23.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 24.12.2003 passed by the learned 4 th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge No.-II, CBI (A.H.D.), Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 322 of 2001 convicting the appellants under sections 450 and 302/34 IPC and further convicting the appellant-Mumtaz Ansari for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under section 302 IPC and R.I. for eight years for the offence under section 450 IPC. The appellant-Mumtaz Ansari was also sentenced to under R.I. for five years for the offence under section 27 of the Arms. However, all the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the informant-Samsuddin Ansari (PW-1) lodged fardbeyan on 03.06.1999 at about 7.00 AM to the effect that in the preceding night at about 8.00 PM appellants called the name of his son-Idarish Ansari (deceased) who was sleeping in the house, on which the informant came out in the 'Aangan' with the lamp and saw the appellants. In the meantime, the wife of the deceased also came with the lamp. The informant told herthat the appellants are calling Idarish. When the appellants learnt that Idarish is inside the house, they rushed into the house and dragged the him and tied his hands with the towel. When the informant asked the appellants as to what they are doing with Idarish, they threatened him. Thereafter, the appellant-Mumtaz Ansari fired at Idarish from point blank range on his ribs, as a result of which Idarish fell in Aangan with bleeding injuries. Thereafter, the appellants fled away. The informant raised hulla, on which the neighbours came. By that time, Idarish died. It was also alleged that a litigation was going on between the informant party and the appellants-Hasimuddin Ansari and Nezam Ansari over certain property for which they had given threatening to the informant party a couple of days back.

(3.) The prosecution examined eleven witnesses. PW-1-informant and PW-4-daughter of the deceased, have been projected as eyewitnesses.