SANATAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants have preferred these appeals against the judgment of conviction dtd. 15/6/2016 and order of sentence dtd. 17/6/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge VIII at East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.404 of 2013 arising out of Bodam Police Station Case No.12 of 2013 [G.R. No. 1310 of 2013], whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for offences under Ss. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each and in case of default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for six months.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that if the evidence of the informant and other witnesses is scrutinized properly, it would be clear that they had not seen the occurrence. They are imposing themselves to be eye witnesses, which actually, they are not. He further contended that the distance between the house of the informant and the place of occurrence is such that it cannot be said that the informant could have reached the place of occurrence, on hearing the alarm. He further argued that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case, which is fatal for prosecution and prejudicial to the defence. It is only the Investigating Officer, who could have actually stated the distance of the place of occurrence from the house of the informant. If the statement of P.W.1 is scrutinized, it would be clear that at the night information was given to the police station, but the said information was not brought before the Court and due to non-examination of the investigating officer, what was the information given at night could not be verified. Since the proper information was given at night, present First Information Report is hit by Sec. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even the blood stained weapon was not seized by the investigating officer. Learned counsel further argued that the P.W.2, who was accompanying the deceased, stated that he was also assaulted, but, there is nothing to suggest that there was any injury as his injury report was not produced. From the aforesaid fact, it cannot be said that the P.W.2 is an injured witness. He also argued that all the witnesses are related witnesses. He further contended that from the evidence, it is clear that there was dispute between the parties, thus, there is every chance of false implication. Further, from the evidence of the doctor, it is clear that only one blow was given, which would suggest that the case would not fall within the ambit of Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rather at best, this case can be one under Sec. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of the appellants and argued that P.W.2 was accompanying the deceased and his version cannot be doubted. He further contended that the informant had seen the assault as his house is next to the place of occurrence. He argued that non-examination of the investigating officer is not fatal in this case as no prejudice is shown by the defence. He contended that enmity cuts both ways and the prosecution has been able to prove that this deceased was threatened by the appellants and they were asked to leave the land, which would suggest that only these appellants have committed the murder. He also argued that the ocular evidence matches with the medical evidence, thus, both these appeals need to be dismissed.