BHUNESHWAR HAZAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dtd. 3/10/2002 and the order of sentence dtd. 5/10/2002 in Sessions Trial No. 299 of 2001 whereby and whereunder learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag convicted Bhuneshwar Hazam, Tilak Hazam, Lundru Hazam, Gulab Hazam, Dharamnath Hazam and Khilu Hazam under Sec. 302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to imprisonment for life each and Mahnu Hazam and Uday Nath Hazam were convicted for the offence under Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire case is based upon the testimony of PW1, PW3 and PW5 but if their evidence is scrutinized properly, the conclusion would be that they are not at all reliable witnesses. Further admittedly there is no eye witness to the occurrence of murder. The body of the victim was found in the brick kiln of Afzal but this Afzal was not examined. As per the evidence of PW3, she overheard a conversation between the accused when they were conspiring to commit murder of the deceased. This conspiracy was hatched in the house of one Arju but surprisingly this Arju is not a witness in this case. PW3 also did not disclose the story of conspiracy to anyone nor even the informant who is the uncle of this witness. The only other material against these appellants is that some of them had earlier assaulted and threatened the deceased as there was some land dispute and cases were pending against them. The statement of PW5 to the effect that they have seen these appellants early in the morning washing their cloths in the pond and was taking bath, is not at all a circumstance to connect these appellants in commission of murder. As per the prosecution case it is one Shobha Devi who had seen the deceased lying in the brick kiln of Afzal but surprisingly Shobha Devi has not been examined as a witness. Further as per the learned counsel, Station Diary Entry was recorded being Station Diary No. 540 of 2000 but the same has not been brought on record which would suggest that the actual first information about the occurrence has been withheld.

(3.) The learned counsel for the State submitted that PW1 had stated that she had seen at the dead end of the night at about 1:00 A.M, these appellants assaulting the deceased and kidnapping him in a gunny bag. She immediately narrated the aforesaid fact to her husband PW2. These two witnesses are just the front door neighbor of the informant and they had stated the aforesaid fact before the police also. Further PW3 had stated that she had heard that the conspiracy was hatched to commit murder of the deceased. There was land dispute and previous animosity between the parties. All these circumstances have been proved by the prosecution thus the conviction is absolutely justified.