JAGDISH GOPE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE appellant Jagdish Gope stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ - by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -V, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 384 of 2002.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that informant Sunita Devi, wife of the appellant, was married with him nearly four years back. However, he used to ill -treat her and further assault her after taking wine. According to the informant, about eights months before this occurrence, she has been left at the house of the deceased (her father) by the appellant as she was in the family way where she delivered a son. On 10th of May 2002, the appellant came to his in - laws house and requested the deceased to send back the informant along with the child with him. However, the deceased did not accept his request and asked him to come with his father so that the informant and the children could go with him safely. This led to all altercation. The appellant returned without his wife and child. Further stated, on 13.5.2002, he again came in the evening and started quarreling with the deceased. However, when the deceased did not yield, the appellant went back and came again at about 8.00 p.m. to stab deceased sitting outside the house. The informant came but of the house to see that the appellant was stabbing her father. She raised alarms, on which neighbours arrived, in the meantime, the appellant fled away. Her father was brought to Hospital where he was declared dead.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that there is no eye -witness of the occurrence. Mr. Laljee Sahay, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 6 are hearsay witnesses of the occurrence whereas the learned trial Court has relied upon the sole eye -witness, informant (PW 5) without any supporting corroboration from other witnesses. It was further pointed out that PW 2, the child witness has been relied upon, who might have been tutored. Learned counsel further raised the point of delay in lodging the first information report and concealing the first information received by the police at Mandu Police Station. The other points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the post -mortem report did not confirm the prosecution case. He further pointed out that the appellant being son -in -law of the deceased has no motive or intention to cause death while assaulting him with dagger. He stressed before us that out of frustration, as the deceased did not allow him to take back his wife and child, the assault has been made which unfortunately resulted in fatal injury. Non - examination of the neighbouring witnesses and non -production of the weapon of assault were also raised in support of this context.