RAUSHAN LINDA 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 and order of sentence both dtd. 25/7/2017, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000.00.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to enmity this appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that a dispute in respect of title of property is going on between the parties and a title suit was also pending. The informant while deposing as P.W.-1 never whispered about the presence of P.W.-5 along with him when the occurrence had taken place. It is the contention of the appellant that these two witnesses became a chance witness, which is absolutely improbable. The deceased infact died due to road accident, which would be apparent from the evidence of the Doctor. Further, it has been argued that in the F.I.R. the informant had named this appellant along with one David as an accused, who as per the informant was along with this appellant at the time of occurrence, but surprisingly during trial he had exonerated David and stated that due to wrong impression David has been made an accused in place of Jitu Linda. The name of Jitu Dinda was not even whispered in the F.I.R. Aforesaid act of P.W.-1/ informant makes him unreliable. Further as per him the occurrence had taken place on a busy road, but surprisingly not even a single independent person was produced by the prosecution as witness. Even the auto driver, in whose auto P.W.-1 and P.W.-5 were allegedly travelling was not made witness. The wife of this P.W.-1 has also not been made a witness, which creates about of the prosecution case on the point of presence of P.W.-1 at the place of occurrence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State submits that P.W.-1 and P.W.-5 are eye witness, who had seen the occurrence. There is nothing in their testimony to disbelieve them. Non-examination of independent witness cannot be fatal for the prosecution, when P.W.-1 and P.W.-5 has consistently supported the prosecution case. So far as enmity is concerned, it has been submitted that the same cut both ways, thus, the appellant cannot take benefit of the same. He prays for dismissal of the same.