KARTIK SINGH MUNDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 324 I.P.C. recorded by the Additional Judicial Commissioner -II, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 616 of 1996 whereby the sole appellant Kartik Singh Munda was directed to be released on execution of probation bond of Rs. 3,000/ -with two sureties of like amount each and to maintain good conduct for a period of one year since the date of the order.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short as it stands narrated in the written report of the informant P.W. 7 Smt. Devi was that on 21.08.1995 while she was returning from the field after serving food to her father at about 8.30 a.m. and no sooner did she arrive near her house she found her father coming running behind her followed by three accused persons including the appellant, armed with guns and she alleged that the appellant Kartik Singh Munda fired shot from his gun upon his father but it missed the target and hit the informant. The villagers arrived at the scene on the sound of gun fire but all the three culprits escaped by firing shots in the air. The motive behind such attack was that the culprits wanted to restrain her father from plaughing his own field. On the written report submitted by the informant the police instituted Tamar P.S. Case No. 66 of 1995 for the offence under Sections 448/307/324/34 I.P.C. and after investigation charge -sheet was submitted against all the three accused but showing the appellant absconder. The case was committed to the court of sessions and the appellant also joined the Trial in the sessions court where all the three accused were put on trial on framing of charge under Sections 324/307 I.P.C. as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(3.) FINALLY , learned Counsel submitted that the appellant was highly prejudiced for non -examination of the Investigating Officer in this case being denied of the opportunity to cross -examine about his objective finding as to whether he found any evidence of firing of shots at the place of occurrence or that he had referred the informant to the Doctor for the examination of her injury or as to whether he had received any pillet from the custody of the doctor P.W. 8 and sent it to the Forensic Science Laboratory for test or recovered any fire arms from the appellant. The Doctor examined the informant and admitted in his testimony that he did find injury on the base of the index finger of her right hand but admitted having not delivered the pillet which he had recovered to the police officer. He fairly admitted that the victim was not examined on the requisition of the police. The Counsel, therefore, drew an inference that the injury report was procured by influencing the P.W. 8 with the desired fictitious injury on the informant alleged to be caused by firearm but without corroboration. The learned Counsel pointed out that the informant P.W. 7 testified in the Court that she sustained three injuries caused by gun fire including on her back and the pillet caused penetrating hole in her blouse and back but the Doctor did not find any injury on her back nor did she produce the said blouse before the police either during investigation in the Court therefore the prosecution failed to establish that the injury found at the base of the index finger of her right hand was caused by firearms and for want of such evidence the appellant should not have been convicted for the alleged charge under Section 307 I.P.C. against the appellant and two other co -accused. The prosecution further failed to prove that on the given facts and circumstance offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code was attracted against the appellant but he was convicted without appreciating the material required for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. on erroneous consideration and therefore, the appellant is liable to be acquitted and exempted from executing bond.