KULDIP MINZ Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is arising out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla vide order dated 19th/20th of July, 2000, respectively in Sessions Trial No. 221 of 1989, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment. Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

(2.) IF the case of the prosecution, if unfolded, the facts are as under : ''

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, who has submitted that the case of the prosecution is based upon two eye -witnesses namely PW 6 and PW 7, who have narrated the whole incident, in detail and without omissions and contradictions. There is enough corroboration to the depositions of these eye -witnesses by the depositions of PW 3 and PW 4 as well as by the depositions of PW 1. Weapons used by the appellants -accused are tangi, a sharp cutting instrument and Lathi. There are number of injuries upon the deceased by these two weapons. Injuries No. 1 to 4 are capable of being caused by tangi which was used by appellant No. 1 (original accused No. 2) and the weapon lathi was used by appellant No. 2 (original accused No. 1). Injury No. 5 is capable of being caused by lathi. The sternum was broken from middle. The medical evidence is corroborative to the depositions of the eye -witnesses. Looking to the deposition of PW 8, weapons were recovered, blood stained earth was also found out at the field, dead body was also lying in the field. Thus, there is enough corroboration to the depositions of the eye - witnesses. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that in FIR though name of Kuldip was not referred, but, there is a reference of one unknown person. Thus, looking to the FIR, there is a genesis of appellant No. 2. Informant is not an eyewitness. Informant is PW 3, who has got information from other eye - witnesses, but, looking to the depositions of PW 6 and PW 7, who are the eye -witnesses, they have given the name of appellant No. 2 i.e. of Kuldip, weapon is also narrated which was in his hand and looking to the medical evidence, there is a corroborative injury i.e. injury No. 5 otherwise, also FIR is a rough sketch of the whole incident and not an encyclopedia of the whole incident. Arun Choudhury Versus State Of Jharkhand