RAM PRAVESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 26.8.2002 and 27,8.2002 respectively passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 1996 whereby and whereunder all the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and appellant no. 1 Ram Pravesh Singh was sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonments for seven years and three years respectively whereas appellant nos. 2 to 4 were sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for five years and three years respectively.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the evening of 17.10.1994 at 4.30 P.M., P.W. 5 heard his uncle Jagarnath Singh (P.W.1) raising alarms was fleeing towards their house from riverside. As the informant was working in Chilly field situated nearby alongwith P.W. 2, P.W. 3, they went towards their uncle and saw that the appellants were chasing P.W. 1 with firearms in their hands. Further stated, when the informant asked the appellants why they were chasing Jagarnath Singh, appellant Ram Pravesh Singh fired from his gun, which resulted in pellet injuries on the informant (P.W. 5) and P.W. 2 Awadesh Singh. Thereafter the appellants fled away. The reason behind this incident is said to be suspicions on part of the appellants that P.W.1 was grazing his buffalo in their fields.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned trial court has not considered the improbability of the prosecution case. It was also asserted that the learned court below has not considered the land dispute going on between the parties, which prompted the prosecution to lodge this false case. According to Mr. T.R. Bajaj, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, the incident took place when P.W. 6 Ram Sakal Singh was trying to fire upon the appellants for disputes regarding grazing of fields, the informant and his brother tried to resist, resulting in these pellet injuries. Learned counsel further submitted that this story of defence gets strengthened from the fact that the pellet injury found on P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 were found having blackening and charring marks on their persons by doctor (P.W. 4). It is also submitted that non -examination of the investigating officer as well as non -production of the arms, raise reasonable doubts against the prosecution story. Therefore, the appellants may be acquitted of the charges.