SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the sole appellant under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dtd. 23/5/2002 and order of sentence dtd. 28/5/2002, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum- Special Judge-IV, Ranchi, in S.T. No.677 of 1996, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that this appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecution and the witnesses and the family members of the deceased in order to save their skin had falsely implicated this appellant. The real story behind the occurrence is that the deceased was adamant to marry this appellant as there was love affair between them, which was opposed by the family members of the deceased. The grand-father of the deceased also had come to the house of the deceased to make her understand and agree with the proposal of the marriage, which was fixed by her family members, but she did not agree and was adamant. Hot exchange of words took place and the brother of the deceased stabbed the deceased by dagger. He submitted that dagger was found in the room of the informant, which is suggestive of the fact that it is none, but the family members of the informant, who had committed the murder. As per him, this is an honour killing and the informant in order to save his skin has lodged a false case. He argued that witnesses Anupam and Pradeep were in fact not the eye witness and admittedly they reached the place of occurrence after the stabbing had already taken place. Madhuri Devi, who is mother of the deceased is also not an eye witness. Forensic Science Laboratory report only suggest presence of blood, but this is not sufficient to convict the appellant. Finger print on the handle of the dagger was also not sent for Forensic Science Examination to see as to whether the same matches with the finger print of this appellant or not. In absence of the Forensic Science examination, this appellant cannot be convicted. On these ground, acquittal is sought for.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the appellant and submitted that the eye witnesses have stated that it is this appellant who had committed the murder. The informant is the eye witness as the deceased was along with him. The mother of the deceased immediately rushed to the room, hearing scream and saw this appellant fleeing and saw the injured. Their statement suggest that it is this appellant, who had committed the murder. The defence version is not supported by any evidence. Even the other co-accused, namely, Mani Lal and Mithilesh Kumar, in their statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. have not whispered about any love affair between this appellant and the deceased which suggest the falsity of the case. It is an admitted fact that immediately after the murder, this appellant consumed poison which would suggest that it is this appellant who had committed the murder. On these grounds, as per the A.P.P., this appeal needs to be dismissed.