RAMNATH MUNDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2003 and order of sentence dated 14.08.2003 passed by Sri Prasanna Kumar Dubey, learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2000, whereby the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in case of default further, rigorous imprisonment for two years has been awarded. It is the case of the prosecution that Puhup Singh Munda (P.W. 6) informed police on 05.10.1999 that he and his nephew namely, Sahdeo Munda (deceased) had gone at the house of Ramnath Munda (present appellant) of village Hunta of District -Ranchi (now Khunti). The present appellant had married with the sister of wife of Sahdeo Munda (deceased) about 7 to 10 years ago. Wife of the present appellant had no issue, and therefore, puja ceremony was to be carried out in the house of the present appellant. On the day of incident at the house of the appellant, the informant, the appellant and the deceased were present. Appellant had insisted not to carry out puja and ultimately they consumed country -made liquor (popularly known as haria) and after consuming said drink, it is the case of the prosecution that the present appellant brought sharp -cutting instrument from his house which is known as 'tangi' and he assaulted the deceased Sahdeo Munda who tried to run away but, the present appellant chased him upto the house of one Shri Narayan Munda (P.W. 2) and ultimately caused injuries upon him by sharp -cutting instrument and killed Sahdeo Munda, and therefore, a fardbeyan was given to the police by Puhup Singh Munda which was reduced in writing and First Information Report was lodged. Investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. Charge -sheet was filed against the present appellant and the case was committed to the Sessions court being Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2000 and on the basis of depositions given by P.W. 1 to P.W. 7, the learned trial court has convicted and punished the present appellant for life imprisonment for causing murder of the deceased for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in case of default further rigorous imprisonment for two years has been awarded.

(2.) WE have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant who has mainly submitted that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the two star witnesses, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7, who are said to be the eye witnesses, are in fact not the eye witnesses at all and there are major omissions and contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court, and hence, judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) IT is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the so -called eye witness P.W. 6 was at the residence of the appellant, whereas deceased was chased by the appellant as per the case of the prosecution. In which direction and where the deceased has gone away at whose house he has ran away, whether the place of scene of offence was visible from the house of the appellant or not, nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution. The investigating officer has not been examined, and therefore, the distance between the house of the appellant and the place of scene of offence is not proved by the prosecution, mainly for the reason that other witness, who is P.W. 7 spoke something else about the scene of offence. Thus, there is gross discrepancy as per the deposition of P.W. 6 and looking to the First Information Report about the place of murder.