SUKHLAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29 th June, 2007 and 4th July, 2007, respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatshila in connection with Sessions Trial No.175 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.444 of 2002, arising out of Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No.56 of 2002, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/ - under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of making payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and one month, respectively.

(2.) The fact, emerging from Fardbeyan of Kali Pado Singh, recorded on 15th December, 2002, at 21:30 hours, at village Kanas, within Dhalbhumgarh Police Station, is that the appellant quarreled with his wife -Shanti Singh in the market. When they returned home, Shanti reported the incident to her mother (deceased). After receiving such complain, the deceased -Shrimati asked the appellant as to why he has quarreled with his wife in the market. While the deceased was trying to make the appellant convinced, he became furious and suddenly inflicted blow by means of knife on the back of the deceased. In the meantime, the informant intervened, but the appellant also inflicted injury to him and fled away. On the basis of Fardbeyan of Kali Pado Singh, Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No.56 of 2002 dated 15th December, 2002 under Sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant was registered. The investigation was carried out and charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No.175 of 2003.

(3.) Charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC against the appellant were framed to which he pleased not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses, including the doctors, Investigating Officers and the informant. Learned Trial Judge, placing reliance on the evidences and documents available on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and inflicted sentence as indicated above.