STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. MANJAR HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the impugned judgment dated 29.7.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 300 of 2000 by Sri Akhileshwar Jha, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum whereby and whereunder respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were not found guilty for the offence under Section 120 -B, IPC read with Section 302, IPC and respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were not found guilty for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC and respondent No. 1 was also not found guilty under Section 302, IPC and they were accordingly acquitted. However, respondent No. 1, Manjar Hussain was found guilty for the offence under Section 25(1 -b) Arms Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Informant Rahul Sawa also filed the aforesaid criminal revision against the impugned judgment under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr PC.

(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan of Rahul Sawa recorded on 9.2.2000 at 8.15 hours by Ramakant Prasad, Officer -in -Charge Bistupur PS at Jublee Park, Jamshedpur where the father of the informant was shot down dead in course of his morning walk and the case was instituted in which suspicion was cast on respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to have caused the murder of his father Hari Prasad Sawa in conspiracy with his associates for the reasons that there were enmity existing and alive between his father on the one hand and aforesaid respondents on the other hand and they were also on litigating terms with the deceased in respect of their business regarding Akashdeep Builders, Golmuri In course of investigation the complicity of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 also transpired in the commission of the murder of the deceased and they were also booked for trial along with respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 has submitted that the learned Court below has properly weighed and scrutinized the evidence on the record and has rightly come to the finding that the respondents are not guilty and there is also no illegality or any perversity in the impugned judgment of the learned Court below acquitting the accused, as per the evidence on the record, and it does not require any interference therein. It has also been submitted for the respondents that there is no question of any miscarriage of justice in this case and the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondents is not per se bad.