DASHRAT SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25 -9 -2006 and the order of sentence dated 26 -9 -2006, passed by learned 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 174 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the learned court below, having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of Surendra Ram alias Mutari Ram, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act with default clause. The case of the prosecution is that on 13 -2 -2002 at about 8.00 a.m., the deceased Surendra Ram, step brother of the informant -Shyamakant Ram (P.W. 4) was going towards a pond. When reached near the house of Jogeshwar Vishwakarma, he saw the appellant taking earth from his field. Upon it, he asked the appellant as to why he is taking earth after digging the field which is to be filled with more earth. That led an altercation between the appellant and the deceased. On the intervention of the villager -Hari Sao, both could be separated. Thereupon, Surendra Ram alias Mutari Ram remained near the house of Jogeshwar Vishwakarma whereas the appellant went towards his house. When the informant -Shyamakant Ram (P.W. 4) came to know that an altercation has taken place between the deceased and the appellant, he became apprehensive that some untoward may not happen and, therefore, he along with Sanjit Kumar Gupta (P.W. 2), the step brother of the deceased, rushed towards the house of Jogeshwar Vishwakarma and while they were 20 yards behind from the house of Jogeshwar Vishwakarma, they saw the appellant taking his bicycle by his hand coming near to his brother Surendra Ram and firing shot upon him. The persons, who were present over there, tried to apprehend the appellant, but none could apprehend him.

(2.) AFTER the occurrence, Sanjit Kumar Gupta -P.W. 2 - informed telephonically to Arun Kumar Singh, Officer -in -charge (P.W. 6) of Jamua Police Station about the occurrence, who entered the said information in the station diary and proceeded to the place of occurrence. On reaching the place of occurrence, he recorded the fardbeyan of the in -formant -Shyamakant Ram (P.W. 4) wherein he stated about the fact which has been stated above. Upon it, a case was registered against the appellant and a formal first information report (Ext. 3) was drawn. He himself took up the investigation and during investigation, he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext. 4).

(3.) MEANWHILE , the I.O. did record the statements of the witnesses and also made inspection of the place of occurrence. After completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted charge -sheet. Upon which, cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant and when the case was committed to the court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial.