SAWARTH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant was put on trial to face charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act on the allegation that he intentionally did commit murder of Rumali Devi. Learned trial court having found the appellant guilty for the charges sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/ -and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 25.5.1999 at about 4 p.m., the informant, Enarwa Devi, P.W. 5, had gone to forest at Kodwaria Tand along with her Gotni, Rumali Devi (deceased) to pluck kendu leaves and while they were about to return, the appellant, having a country -made gun with him, reached over there at about 6 p.m. On finding the appellant with the gun, one Mohit Singh, P.W. 3, asked him not to move around there with gun, as so many ladies have been plucking kendu leaves, but the appellant fired shot from his gun which hit over the chest of Rumali Devi resulting into her death. The informant, Enarwa Devi, P.W. 5, having found Rumali Devi dead, started raising alarm upon which several villagers reached at the place of occurrence and brought the dead -body to village. When some of the villagers informed to the police, they came to the village on the next day i.e. on 26.5.1999 and recorded fard -beyan of informant, Enarwa Devi, P.W. 5, upon which a case was registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and also Under Section 27 of Arms Act. After the matter was taken up for investigation, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Dr. Gayan Prakash Singh, P.W. 1, held autopsy on the dead body and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :

(3.) THE trial court having found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid charges recorded the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid. Being aggrieved with the said judgment, this appeal has been preferred.