CHHOTU KALINDI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction dtd. 17/5/2013 and Order of Sentence dtd. 18/5/2013 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella- Kharswan in Sessions Trial No.172 of 2011, whereby the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years each and fine of Rs.4,000.00 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months for the offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code; further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for offence under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each for offence under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month each for the offence punishable under Ss. 341 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are no materials to convict these appellants, thus, the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting and awarding sentence to the appellants. He submits that there was one shop nearby and no independent witness was examined, which establishes the allegation to be false. As per him it was dark at night as occurrence had taken place at 09.30 p.m., which creates doubt about identification of the appellants by the witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant harps upon the statement made by the P.W.1 at paragraph 10, wherein he stated that the injury was caused because of an assault, but this witness did not take the name of the person who has assaulted him. He further submits that non-examination of Chandan Sardar, who resides next to the place of occurrence and that too of Tea Shop owner is fatal for the prosecution. He further submits that the informant, in his written report before the police, has not stated that his son along with Sanjay Das had reached the place of occurrence after receiving a phone call from his daughter-in-law whereas P.W.2 has stated in his deposition before the Trial Court that he along with Sanjay Das (P.W.3) had reached the place of occurrence from market upon receiving a phone call from his wife. He submits that this is a clear case where the appellants ought to have been acquitted by the Trial Court in absence of any concrete evidence to substantiate the charges against the appellants.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that there are sufficient and cogent evidence without there being any contradictions or ambiguity amongst the prosecution witnesses about the manner of assault and weapons used by the appellants, which is also corroborated by the medical evidence. He submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants after weighing the entire materials and evidence available on record and the same needs no interference by this Court.