MANGAR RAY Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -I, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1993/272 of 2002. This appellant has been convicted for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for causing murder of Lodhar Mahto. The case of the prosecution is as under:

(2.) WE have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant, who has submitted that there are major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. The so called eye witnesses of the incident are infact not the eye witnesses at all and they have not seen the incident of murder of the deceased. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there are more than one F.I.R. in this case. The medical evidence given by the doctor, Dr. A.K. Chatterjee, P.W. -9, and the ocular evidence given by the prosecution witnesses, especially P.W. 1, P.W. -3, P.W. -4, P.W. -5, P.W. -6 and P.W. -7 are not in contradiction with the medical evidence. The weapon alleged to have been used as per the medical opinion is 'Dab', which was, as per the prosecution case, in the hands of the accused - Hemlal, who expired during the course of the trial and in the hand of the present appellant, as alleged by the prosecution witnesses, was 'Sickle'. These injuries have not been caused by this appellant, even as per the medical evidence given by the P.W. -9. Infact, the eye witnesses are untrustworthy and unreliable. Moreover, the blood stained earth was sent for chemical analysis, but neither the report has been received nor the same has been adduced as an evidence before the learned trial court. The sketch map of the place of occurrence has also not been prepared by the Investigating Officer. Infact, the informant and other so called eye witnesses have falsified the prosecution case itself. Initially, there was an allegation of unlawful assembly, but the same could not have been established by the prosecution. The depositions of the so called eye witnesses are self contradictory to each other and though the other witnesses were available at the place of occurrence, only those, who are relatives of the deceased, have been examined by the prosecution. All those aspects have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court, hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) HAVING heard the counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, we see no reason to entertain this Criminal Appeal, mainly for the following facts, reasons and evidences on record: