SANTOSH RAM Vs. SHIV LAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dtd. 5/2/2016 and order of sentence dtd. 10/2/2016 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2013, arising out of Chutia Police Station Case No.233 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No.6186 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for offences under Ss. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000.00 for committing the offence punishable under Ss. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, both the appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-convicts submitted that there is no material and evidence to convict these appellants. It is their contention that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and P.W.3 and P.W.12, who claim themselves to be the eye witness, are not trustworthy. Further, it has come in evidence that while these two witnesses reached the place of occurrence, the appellants fled away by jumping boundary wall of the railway station, thus, it cannot be said that these two witnesses are eye witnesses to the occurrence. All the other witnesses are hearsay witnesses, who were informed over telephone about the occurrence. They further contended that in his cross examination, P.W.3 had stated that persons gathered there had seen the occurrence, but no other witness has been examined by the prosecution who had witnessed the occurrence. They contended that the P.W.3 and P.W.12 who claim to be the eye witness to the occurrence, have not narrated the manner of assault. They also argued that though the place of occurrence is densely populated area, yet surprisingly, there is no eye witness, who could have seen the appellants assaulting the deceased. They contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that P.W. 3 and P.W.12 are eye witness to the occurrence and they have narrated the manner of occurrence without leaving any space for doubt. The defence has not brought any material to doubt the credibility of the eye witnesses. They further contended that the motive has also been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Further the assault as narrated by the ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. They further contended that the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, thus the appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court.