SAHADAT MIAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22.11.2003 and order of sentence dated 24.11.2003 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast track Court), Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2002/116 of 2002. These appellants have been convicted for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 149 thereof. They are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 149 thereof. They are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. They all are also convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Further, accused Kutu Mian and Ishaq Mian are convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 16.03.2002 the informant Md. Hussain Ansari (P.W. 9) gave written report to the police that on 16.03.2002 at 5.00 p.m., the father of the informant Jabbar Mian (deceased) returned to his home taking vegetable from Hatia in scooter. Then Md. Ishaq Mian, Samsuddin Mian, Rustam Mian, Barik Mian, Lukman Mian, Kutu Mian, Sahadat Mian, Kadir Mian, Safiqe Mian, by making unlawful assembly with Tangi, Bhala and rod, came to the door of the informant and started using abusive and filthy languages towards the father of the informant and also told that today they will kill him and when father of the informant tried to stop the accused persons from using abusive and filthy languages, then Ishaq Mian with Tangi in his hand and Barik Mian and Lukman Mian with rod, tried to kill the father of the informant by assaulting in his head due to which father of the informant got injured and fell on the ground and became unconscious. After hearing noise (hulla), the brother of the informant Murslin Mian (deceased) came there but Kutu Mian assaulted brother of the informant with Bhala in his head and Samsuddin Mian and Kadir Mian with rod and Safique Mian with rod assaulted brother of the informant in his back and leg due to which brother of the informant got injured and fell down and became unconscious. Thereafter, brother-in-law Sirajjudin Ansari (P.W. 3) went there to rescue them, then Kutu Mian assaulted him in the head by Bhala and Sahadat Mian and Kadir Mian with rod assaulted him in his leg and back and injured him. Thereafter, hearing noise the brother of the informant Mobin Mian (P.W. 5) came there to save them but Safique Mian with lathi and Ishaq Mian with Tangi assaulted him in his head due to which he got injured and when mother of the informant Jarina Bibi (P.W. 7) came there, then Rustam Mian assaulted in her head with rod and injured her. The informant further alleged that due to fear when he was shouting for help, then Lukman Mian assaulted in his left leg with rod and got him injured. Thereafter the aforesaid accused persons entered in his shop and took away Rs. 3000/- from there. The informant further alleged that the reason behind the occurrence is a Sand dispute and case of dowry going on between the family of accused Sanadat Mian and brother-in-law of the informant Sirajjudian Ansari.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for appellants in the appeals that there were major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellants that there are major omissions and contradictions, so far as the weapons used by the accused persons is concerned. The medical evidence and the ocular evidence are contrary to each other. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that accused Ishaq Mian and accused Samsuddin Mian were having Tangi and Bhala as alleged by the prosecution, whereas, rest of the accused persons were having either iron rod or lathi. Therefore, the case of Ishaqu and Samsuddin may be separated from rest of the accused persons. The so-called eyewitnesses and other eyewitnesses of the incident are the relative of the deceased. In fact, there were other eyewitnesses also as per the narration of the witnesses, but they have not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in this case. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellants that there were disputes between the accused persons and the victims and, therefore, there are all chances of false implication of the accused persons. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and, hence the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.