MD. NASEEM ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, under Sec. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred against the Judgment of conviction dtd. 18/10/2012 and order of sentence dtd. 19/10/2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 429 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 302/34 of IPC and under Sec. 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Sec. 302/34 and further has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sec. 27 of Arms Act. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix

(2.) The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the fardbeyan by one Md. Miraj, the informant, read as under: On 6/4/2008 at evening while informant was going on his motorcycle from his house situate at village-Chhatabad to Katras for getting his motorcycle repaired and happened to reach by the tea stall of Birju Sao near Chhatabad bridge, he saw his brother Md. Firoz taking tea along with Md. Sabir, Laxman Rawani, Mangal @ Mumtaz and Vicky at said tea stall. On the same day at about 6:45 pm when informant was returning back from Katras and reached at said tea stall, he saw that Md. Naseem Ansari (appellant) arrived there along with 4-5 unknown persons and the appellant aimed his revolver at temple of Md. Firoz and fired one shot and his other 4- 5 unknown companions also fired repeatedly with their revolvers and then all miscreants fled away. Md. Firoz was taken to Choudhary Nursing Home, Katras and from there to a Asarfi hospital at Dhanbad where he was declared already dead. Enmity between the accused and the deceased is said to be the motive of alleged occurrence.

(3.) After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against Md. Muslim Ansari for offences u/s 302/34 IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms Act, with a note that in spite of best efforts, the identity and address of rest 4-5 unknown miscreants could not have been traced out, thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions.