MRITYUNJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the appellant on I.A. bearing No. 4377 of 2014 filed in Cri. Appeal No. 890 of 2013 on behalf of the appellant Sonu Singh wherein prayer has been made to admit him on bail. On the other hand, prayer has also been made in Cri. Appeal No. 884 of 2013 on behalf of the appellant Mrityunjay Kumar Singh to admit him on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased and his two brothers having purchased three -tickets of a bus for coming to Ranchi from Jamshedpur had been allotted seat Nos. 3, 4 and 14. When the deceased Satyanand Singh, along with his two brothers, boarded the bus, they found that two of the seats allotted to them have been occupied by other persons whereas one seat was vacant which was occupied by one of the brothers. On finding this, the deceased and other brother made request from the conductor of the bus to get those two seats vacated, the conductor declined. Thereupon, the deceased and his brother asked the conductor to refund the money that was also declined by him. When insistence was made for refunding the money, the conductor called these two appellants to assault the deceased. Thereupon, Sonu Singh brought iron rod and Lathi and started assaulting them, in that course, Mritunjay Singh gave iron blow on the head of the deceased causing injury resulting into his death but the prosecution has failed to establish this case. In this regard, learned counsel Mr. Manoj Tandan submits that conviction has been secured on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 3, but from his evidence it does not appear as to from whom he came to know the name of these two appellants. However, it appears that during investigation, the names of these two appellants got transpired when one person disclosed their names but strangely he has not been made witness and therefore it may be a case of mis -identification and the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellant. Further it was submitted on behalf of appellant Mritunjay Singh that only one blow was alleged to have been given on the scalp of the deceased and that too during altercation and therefore it can never be said that appellant had had intention to commit murder of the deceased.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Sonu Singh submits that he has not been alleged specifically to have given fatal blow to the deceased and therefore, the appellant deserves to be admitted on bail, particularly when evidence is so vague as to whom the appellant Sonu Singh had assaulted.

(3.) AS against this, learned counsel for the State submits that from the facts and circumstances, it can easily be gathered that appellants did assault the deceased with a view to kill him. As per the evidence of doctor, the injury found on the scalp of the deceased was sufficient to cause death and thereby the court has rightly convicted the appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and that the question of misidentification does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the accused persons had been identified by P.W. 3.