AJIT BARLA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dtd. 20/11/2017 and order of sentence dtd. 27/11/2017 passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 652 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the appellant having been found guilty of charge under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000.00.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which damages the case of the prosecution. As per him, the accused was arrested from his house, whereas P.W. 4 stated that the appellant was arrested at the place of occurrence. He further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of commission of murder and when there was no dispute amongst the parties, why the deceased will be murdered by this appellant is a mystery. He also argued that P.W. 4, who claims to be an eye witness, in her evidence, stated that seeing the appellant along with murder weapon, she closed her eyes, thus according to the counsel for the appellant, P.W. 4 is not actually an eye witness to the occurrence. He further submitted that P.W. 7, who is informant of this case, cannot be said to be an eye witness, because, when he reached the place of occurrence, alleged murder had already been taken place. As per the counsel for the appellant it is P.W. 7, who, in fact, has committed the murder, but the entire blame is now being trusted upon this appellant. He also argued that P.W. 3 is not an eye witness to the occurrence thus his evidence cannot be looked into.

(3.) Counsel for the State argued that P.W. 4 was sleeping in the same room along with the appellant and other two deceased and she had seen the occurrence with her own eyes and has narrated the same. Her testimony cannot be doubted nor she can be said to be a witness of doubtful character. So far as P.W. 7 is concerned, who is informant of this case, he stated that immediately on hearing the alarm, raised by P.W. 4, he reached the room where the deceased and the appellant were sleeping and saw the deceased with injuries on nose and left cheek and they were lying in a pool of blood. He further stated that the medical evidence corroborates with the ocular evidence. This P.W. 7 had also seen this appellant with axe, which clearly corroborates the evidence of P.W. 4 and proves that it is none, but this appellant who has committed the murder of the deceased. He further submitted that P.W. 3 had also seen the injuries on the person of the deceased and she also corroborated the prosecution story of P.W. 7, who stated that on hearing the scream, he went to the room and saw the deceased lying in injured conditions. Further, the murder weapon was recovered on the confessional statement of this appellant and the confession was properly recorded and the Investigating Officer also disclosed the aforesaid fact in details in his evidence. Thus, as per the State, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore the conviction of the appellant needs no interference.