PRAN MANJHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dtd. 13/5/2014 and order of sentence dtd. 15/5/2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No.184 of 2012, whereby, the appellant have been convicted under Sec. (s) 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000.00 .

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that though P.Ws. 3 and 9 posed to be the eye witnesses, but if their evidence is evaluated properly, there can be no iota of doubt that they were not the eye witnesses and were not present at the place of occurrence. He further submitted that P.W. 9, who claims to be an eye witness, stated that between the place of occurrence and the place where she was i.e. near the well, there is a house, which clearly proves that her vision was obstructed, thus she cannot be said to be an eye witness and she could not have seen the assault. He also argued that P.W.1 in his evidence has not whispered about the presence of P.W.3, which suggests that evidence of P.W. 3 is doubtful. It is also evident that the deceased, after being inflicted by the blow immediately became unconscious, thus, there was no scope for him to give any statement before any person, thus the alleged oral dying declaration is nothing, but after thought by the prosecution witnesses. There is dispute about the nature of murder weapon, which has not been recovered, which is fatal for the prosecution. He further submitted that admittedly, there was no dispute between the deceased and this appellant, who is the full brother and that being so, there is no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. Counsel for the appellant argued that even the blood stained earth was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for proper examination and in absence of report from FSL, the appellant cannot be held guilty. As per him, it has come in evidence that the deceased was a habitual drunker and a thief, who often used to steal household articles in the village, thus there is high probability that the villagers had killed the deceased. He further contended that these factors make the prosecution case doubtful so far as involvement of this appellant is concerned, thus, this appeal needs to be allowed and the appellant be acquitted.

(3.) Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that P.W. 9- is the eye witness and one line of the deposition cannot be extracted from the entire evidence rather, the entire deposition has to be read as a whole, which would suggest that P.W. 9 is an eye witness. She further stated that though there exists a house between the place of occurrence and where the P.W. 9 was standing, but yet her clarification given during evidence clearly suggests that she is an eye witness. She further argued that the mother of the deceased and the appellant has categorically stated that the deceased, soon after collapsing, stated that it was this appellant, who had assaulted him and there is nothing to disbelieve the statement of the mother. She also submitted that the presence of the mother of the deceased and the appellant at the place of occurrence is proved by the statement of other witnesses, who stated that after hearing the scream, the mother along with other witnesses reached the place of occurrence when this appellant was seen fleeing from the place of occurrence. It has also been argued that the conduct of the appellant would also suggest the guilt of the appellant, therefore, the impugned judgment needs no interference.