SINGRAI TANTI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dtd. 19/12/2017 and 23/12/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.136 of 2012, arising out of Muffasil Police Station Case No.02 of 2012 (G.R. No.05 of 2012), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Ss. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that there are no eye witness, who had seen this appellant firing upon the deceased. As per him, all the witnesses, who deposed before the Court had reached the place of occurrence after the deceased was shot at, thus, those witnesses are unreliable. He submits that motive is absolutely missing in this case. He argues that it is the prosecution case that the deceased in injured state had divulged before the witnesses that it is this appellant, who shot at him, but it is doubtful whether the deceased was in a state of giving such statement or not. Though it is alleged that the murder weapon was recovered on the basis of confessional statement of the appellant, yet murder weapon was not sent for any scientific forensic examination. He submits that the bullet which was found in the body of the deceased was not matched with the murder weapon, which is fatal for the prosecution. He also argues that the recovery on the basis of alleged confessional statement should not be considered by this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the evidence of the eye witnesses would clearly suggest that it is this appellant, who had committed the murder. Eye witnesses have seen this appellant, with a fire arm in his hand, leaving the room where the deceased and the appellant were there. He submits that the deceased disclosed that it is this appellant who had committed the murder. Thus, there is no room to disbelieve the statement of the witnesses. Since there are eye witnesses to the occurrence and their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and sentenced him.