Jharkhand High Court
Mafijuddin Sk vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
(Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 8th
February, 2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in
Sessions Case No.80 of 2010/S.T. No.70 of 2013)
Mafijuddin Sk. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Satya Shatakshi, Advocate
Ms. Kishmati Minj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP
.....
C.A.V. on 20.04.2023 Pronounced on 26.04.2023
Subhash Chand, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State.
1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the
appellant against impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of
sentence dated 8th February, 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Pakur in Sessions Case No.80 of 2010/S.T. No.70 of 2013,
whereby, the appellant had been convicted for the offence under
Sections 302/342 of the Indian Penal Code and had been sentenced
to undergo rigorous life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this criminal appeal are that the
informant--Tufaani Sheikh gave the written information with the
police station concerned with these allegations, on 21st April, 2010,
that his brother Israil Sheikh @ Bhagat Sheikh had borrowed money
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
Rs.1000/- from Azad Sheikh and in lieu of the same had assured him
to do labour for him. In the meantime his mother fell ill and his
brother could not go to do labour. Two days ago from today (21st
April, 2010) Azad Sheikh came to his house and demanded the
money lent by him and his brother stated that same was spent in the
treatment of his ailing mother and he would return the same. Azad
Sheikh and his brother Mofijul Sheikh hurled abuse to his brother. His
brother also asked him not to hurl abuse and told that he would
return the money soon. The matter was pacified on that day. His
brother Israil Sheikh went for labour to another place. On 21st April,
2010 at 2 o' clock of day time, Azad Sheikh and Mofijuddin Sheikh
both came to the house of the informant and called his brother Israil
Sheikh and they took him to reconsider the matter and they gave him
stab wound and after committing murder Mofijuddin Sheikh fled
away with blood stained knife. The persons of the locality attracted
there. He and his family members also reached there and found his
brother lying in pool of blood. Both Azad Sheikh and Mofijuddin
Sheikh had committed murder of his brother Sanaul Sheikh by giving
knife blow.
3. On this written information, the Case Crime No. 99 of 2010 was
registered on 21st April, 2010 with the police station Pakur under
Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against
the accused Azad Sheikh and Mofijuddin Sheikh. The Investigating
Officer concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet against
both the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 read
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
with 34 of the I.P.C. The concerned Magistrate took cognizance on
the charge-sheet and committed the same for trial to the court of
Sessions Judge, Pakur.
4. The court of Sessions Judge, Pakur transferred the case to the
court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur. The trial court framed
charge against both the accused under Sections 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The charge was read over and explained to all the
accused, who denied the charge and claimed for trial.
5. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against both
the accused persons in oral evidence examined P.W.1-Afjal Banu Bibi,
P.W.2-Sarifa Khatoon, P.W.3-Md. Ajharuddin Sk., P.W.4-Tara Bewa,
P.W.5-Sahdeo Mandal, P.W.6-Phulchand Mandal, P.W.7-Tufani
Sheikh, P.W.8- Dr. Ashish Naval Tigga and P.W.9-Shaligram Kuwar.
6. On behalf of the prosecution in documentary evidence Ext.1 is
fard beyan, Ext.2 is postmortem report and Ext. 3 is formal F.I.R.
7. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. was also recorded, wherein the accused persons denied the
incriminating circumstances against them and stated them to be
innocent.
8. The trial court vide judgment dated 8th February, 2013
acquitted the accused--Aazad Sheikh from the charge framed against
him but convicted the accused--Mofijul Sk. @ Mofijuddin Sk for the
charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/-.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
9. The aforesaid convict being aggrieved with the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 8th February, 2013 preferred
present criminal appeal on the grounds that the impugned judgment
of conviction is bad in the eyes of law and same has been passed on
wrong appreciation of the evidence. The impugned judgment is
based on conjecture and surmises. The learned trial court did not
consider the contradiction in the statements of the so called eye-
witnesses. The appellant has no motive to commit the alleged
offence. The knife used in commission of the murder was not
recovered and same was not sent to State Forensic Science
Laboratory to prove the case against the appellant. Accordingly, he
prayed to allow the present criminal appeal and to set aside the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
against the appellant.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
A.P.P. for the State of Jharkhand and perused the materials available
on record.
11. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned
trial court, we would like to re-appreciate the evidence on record,
which are reproduced herein below :
12. P.W.-1 Afjal Banu Bibi in her examination-in-chief says that
the occurrence was of nine months ago. It was 2 o' clock of day time
and she returned to her house after having taken bath and saw
Sanaul Sheikh who came to her house was assaulted by Mofijul
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
Sheikh with the knife. He gave knife blow twice and hurled abuse and
when she cried he also used abusive words to her. Two knife blows
were given on his chest and another on his arm. Sanaul died at the
spot and Mofijul fled away from there. She identified the accused in
the dock.
In cross-examination, this witness says that she and her
daughter both saw Mofijul assaulting with knife to Sanaul, who died
at the spot. Mofijul fled away along with the knife.
12.1 P.W.-2 Sarifa Khatoon in her examination-in-chief says that
the occurrence was of nine months ago from that day. It was 2 o'
clock of day time. She was cutting biri leaves in her Verandah and
saw Mofijul assaulting to Sanaul with knife. Sanaul fell on the ground
and Mofijul had given knife blow on his chest and back, who died at
the spot. Mofijul was alone. She identified the accused Mofijul in the
dock.
In cross-examination, this witness says, Sanaul died in
Verandah of her house. The alarm was raised and several persons
and Tufani also came there.
12.2 P.W.-3 Md. Azharuddin Sheikh in his examination-in-chief
says that the occurrence was of ten months ago from that day. It
was 2 o' clock of day time. He was sitting at the door of his house
and saw Mofijul taking Sanaul with him to the house of Ataul Sheikh.
Thereafter alarm was raised. He also reached there and saw Mofijul
assaulting with knife to Sanaul. He assaulted on the chest of Sanaul,
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
who died at the spot. This occurrence took place adjacent to the
house of Ataul.
In cross-examination, this witness says that the house of Ataul
Sheikh from his house is at the distance of 100 meters. When he
reached there, he also saw Sarifa and Afjal Bibi there and none was
there except them. Mofijul fled away after having given knife blow
and Sanaul died at the spot.
12.3 P.W.-4 Tara Bewa (the mother of the deceased) in her
examination-in-chief stated that on the day of occurrence after
having heard hulla, she reached at the place of occurrence within five
minutes and saw there Sanaul Sheikh dead and she came to know
from the persons of the village that Azad and Mofijul had assaulted
him. There was wound on the chest and neck of her son.
In cross-examination, this witness says that Sanual and Azad
called for and took his son with them. They took him at the house of
Ataul. She found her son dead in the Verandah of house of Ataul.
12.4 P.W.-5 Sahdeo Mandal in his examination-in-chief stated
that on the day of occurrence Daroga ji came at the spot. Daroga ji
had interrogated him. Sanaul had died sustaining knife injury.
In cross-examination, this witness says that he did not see the
occurrence.
12.5 P.W.-6 Fulchand Mandal in his examination-in-chief stated
that he did not see the occurrence by whom the murder of Sanaul
was committed. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
examined on behalf of the prosecution. He denied the statement
given to the I.O. during investigation under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
12.6. P.W.-7 Tufani Sheikh (the informant of the case) in his
examination-in-chief says that the occurrence was of 1 year 3 months
ago from that day. It was 2 o' clock of day time. Azad Sheikh and
Mofijul Sheikh both had quarreled with his brother, thereafter, they
took his brother to the house of Ataul. Upon hearing hulla he also
reached there and saw that Azad Sheikh and Mofijul Sheikh both
were fleeing away having knife in the hand. The knife was blood
stained. His brother sustained knife injury on the chest and right side
of the neck. It was Mofijul Sheikh, who given knife blow. The dispute
arose on the issue of payment of Rs.1000/- which his brother had
borrowed and could not return the same and assured to do labour in
lieu thereof. On that day, the matter was pacified and after two days
of that day, this occurrence took place. Both accused persons took
his brother Sanaul Sheikh with them and committed murder. He gave
the written information with the police station concerned on which he
verifies his signature thereon which was marked Ext.1.
In cross-examination, this witness says that while going to the
house of Ataul from his house, first came the house of Mofijul
thereafter the house of Ataul. The house of Ataul Sheikh, Azad
Sheikh and Mofijul Sheikh are separate. When he came out of his
house he was told by the wife of Ataul that both accused persons
had committed murder of his brother.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
12.7 P.W.-8 Dr. Ashish Naval Tigga in his examination-in-chief
says that on 22nd April, 2010, he was posted as Medical Officer, Sadar
Hospital, Pakur and on that day he conducted the autopsy at 10:00
a.m. on the body of Sanual Sheikh and found following external ante
mortem injuries :
i. Rigours mortis passed on upper limbs and present in
lower limbs.
ii. Blood coming from both nostrils.
iii. Stabbed wound ½" wide x cavity deep present at mid
sternal region towards right, transverse in direction
right and clear cut.
iv. Incised wound 2" x muscle deep on upper back of left
side about 1 inch from midline.
On dissection
Chest - Stabbed wound mark on external area
between first and second ribs. Chest cavity filled with dark
clotted blood about 500 ml.
This witness also opined that cause of death was
haemhorhage and shock due to hard sharp cutting with
sharp edged weapon such as knife and dagger. This autopsy
report was prepared by him and is under his signature which was
marked as Ext.2.
12.8 P.W.-9 Shaligram Kuwar (the I.O. of the case) in his
examination-in-chief says that he was posted as Sub-Inspector at
Pakur (M) Police Station on 21st April, 2010 and recorded the fard
beyan of Tufani Sheikh. He further stated that he had signed on the
said fard beyan and proved the signature of the Tufani Sheikh on the
same which was marked Ext.1/1. He has further proved the signature
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
of the then Officer-in-Charge of the police station concerned, namely,
Ramveer Ray which has been marked Ext.3. He inspected the place
of occurrence which was the verandah of the house of Ataul Sheikh.
He recorded the statements of witness - Tara Bewa, Md. Azharuddin
Sheikh, Afjal Bibi, Sarifa Khatoon and Fulchand Mandal. After
concluding investigation, he had filed the charge-sheet in this case.
In cross-examination, this witness says that the place of
occurrence was the verandah of the house of Ataul. He did not take
the blood from the place of occurrence and he did not make effort to
recover the knife used in murder.
13. The prosecution case is based on direct evidence. The eye-
witnesses of the occurrence are P.W.-1 Afjal Banu Bibi, P.W.-2
Sarifa Khatoon and P.W.-3 Md. Ajharuddin Sheikh. P.W.-1 is
the wife of Ataur Rahman and P.W.-2 is the daughter of Ataur. In the
Verandah of their house the occurrence took place. Afjal Banu Bibi
has stated that she had seen Mofijul giving knife blow to Sanual. He
gave two knife blows on his chest and one on his arm. Thereafter
Mofijul fled away along with knife and Sanaul died at the spot. P.W.-
2 Sarifa Khatoon is the daughter of the deceased--Ataur. She also
says that at the time of occurrence she was cutting the leaves of biri
in her verandah. Mofijul gave knife blow to Sanaul. He gave knife
blow on his chest and back. Sanaul died at the spot. P.W.-3
Ajharuddin Sheikh in his statement says that at the time of
occurrence he was sitting at the door of his house. Mafijul called
Sanaul and took Sanual with him towards the house of Ataul Sheikh.
- 10 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
Thereafter he heard hulla and immediately reached there and saw
Mofijul giving knife blow to Sanaul on his chest, who died at the spot.
This occurrence took place near the house of Ataul.
14. In testimony of all these three eye-witnesses, there is no
contradiction in their statement given before the trial court and the
statement given before the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The
presence of all these three witnesses at the place of occurrence could
not be shaked in cross-examination by the defence. The presence of
these witnesses at the place of occurrence is found natural as P.W.-
1 Afjal Banu Bibi and P.W.-2 Sarifa Khatoon both are the
eye-witness in whose verandah of the house, the occurrence
took place. P.W.-3 Md. Ajharuddin Sheikh also saw the
occurrence who was sitting at the door of the house and also
reached at the place of occurrence and distance from the
place of occurrence to his house was only 100 meter.
15. P.W.-4 Tara Bewa (the mother of the deceased) says that
after hearing hulla on the day of occurrence she reached at the place
of occurrence which was verandah of house of Ataul and saw his son
is lying in pool of blood. She was told by Sarifa Khatoon and
Afjal Banu Bibi that Mafijul had given knife blow to her son
and fled away.
16. P.W.-7 Tufani Sheikh is the brother of the deceased and
informant. He has proved the written information as Ext.1 and says
that on hearing hulla he reached at the place of occurrence and saw
his brother Sanaul lying in pool of blood, who had sustained knife
- 11 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
injury. His brother was lying at the verandah of house of the Ataul
and the wife of Ataul told him that Mafijul had given a knife
blow to his brother, who was lying in pool of blood.
17. The testimony of these two witnesses is also admissible in
evidence under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as a res gestae
evidence as both these witnesses reached at the place of occurrence
after having hearing the screaming and alarm and found deceased
Sanaul lying in pool of blood, who had sustained injury and they also
came to know from the eye-witness P.W.-1 Afjal Banu Bibi and P.W.-
2 Sarifa Khatoon that it was Mafijul, who had given knife blow to
Sanaul. Therefore, the testimony of these witnesses also
become admissible in evidence, as they reached at the place
of occurrence immediately after the occurrence and were
told by the eye-witness in regard to the occurrence.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v.
Ramesh and Another reported in (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 493 at
paragraph 18 has held as under :
"18. In Sukhar v. State of U.P. [(1999) 9 SCC 507 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 419] this Court has explained the provisions of
Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 1872 observing that it is an
exception to the general rule whereunder the hearsay
evidence becomes admissible. However, such evidence
must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there
should not be an interval which would allow fabrication.
The statements sought to be admitted, therefore, as
forming part of res gestae, must have been made
contemporaneously with the acts or immediately
thereafter. The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which,
though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue
"as to form part of the same transaction" that it becomes
relevant by itself. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to
the evidence of Munna Lal (PW 2), we reach the conclusion
that his statement indicating that Rannu Bai (PW 1) had
come to him and told that her father was beaten by
- 12 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
Ramesh with the help of her mother, is admissible under
Section 6 of the Evidence Act."
18.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukhtiar Singh and
Anr v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court
1854 at paragraph 8 has held as under :
"8.PW-5 has clearly stated in his statement that no
telephone was installed at the Railway Station, Kahangarh
but there was a telephone installed at the Railway Control
Room at the Railway Station which, however, was found to
be out of order. He also stated that he had gone to GRP
Police Post at Budhlada from where he sent a message to
the Control Room at Bathinda on telephone about the
occurrence. The aforesaid statement clearly explains the
delay in sending the information and also explained as to
why detailed information regarding all materials leading to
the occurrence was not mentioned by him. He cannot be
called in any manner an interested witness; in fact he was a
most dis-interested witness. Nothing has been brought on
record to show that he is inimical to the accused persons.
He has specifically stated in his depositions that he saw the
aforesaid accused running towards the village side carrying
weapons. His presence at the spot cannot be doubted as it
is established that he was at duty at the Railway Police
Post, Kahangarh, which is the place of occurrence. He has
also stated in his depositions that he had in fact chased the
two accused persons up to a certain distance but could not
manage to nab them and that when he returned to the
scene of occurrence, Surjit Kaur, PW-3, disclosed to him
about the occurrence. This shows that he did not see the
accused persons attacking the deceased but learnt about
the same from an eye witness and the said information
about the dead body lying at the platform was flashed by
him, for he knew that on receipt of the aforesaid
information the police should start investigation and during
that course police would definitely ask eye
witnesses and get all the information from them. In any
case, his information would be hearsay evidence, but as the
same corroborates the substantive evidence."
19. The ocular evidence adduced on behalf the prosecution is also
corroborated with the medical evidence. P.W.-8 Dr. Ashish Nawal
Tigga has proved the autopsy report of the deceased Sanual as
Ext.2. This witness found the following external ante mortem injuries:
i. Rigours mortis passed on upper limbs and present in lower limbs.
ii. Blood coming from both nostrils.
- 13 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
iii. Stabbed wound ½" wide x cavity deep present at mid sternal
region towards right, transverse in direction right and clear cut.
iv. Incised wound 2" x muscle deep on upper back of left side about 1
inch from midline.
On dissection
Chest - Stabbed wound mark on external area between first and
second ribs. Chest cavity filled with dark clotted blood about 500 ml.
The doctor has opined that the cause of death was shock
and hemorrhage as a result of sharp cutting weapon such as
knife or dagger. Therefore, the ocular evidence is well corroborated
with the medical evidence.
20. The Investigating Officer (P.W.-9) in his statement stated that
he had recorded the fard beyan of Tufani Sheikh and he also
recorded the statement of witness, Tara Bewa, Md. Ajharuddin
Sheikh, Afjal Bibi, Sarifa Khatoon and Fulchand Mandal. There is
nothing to shake the testimony of the eye-witnesses and other
witnesses whose statements he recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
This witness has also proved the place of occurrence which is the
verandah of the house of Ataul. As such the testimony of this P.W.-9
also corroborated the prosecution story.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the blood
was not taken from the place of occurrence and blood stained knife
was not recovered by the I.O. and same was not sent to SFSL for
examination which is fatal to the prosecution case.
22. Admittedly, the I.O. has not taken the blood from the place of
occurrence and did not recover the knife used in commission of the
murder. Consequently, the same was not sent to SFSL for
- 14 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
examination but this lackadaisical approach on the part of the
I.O. cannot discredit the testimony of the eye-witnesses in
whose presence the appellant has assaulted with knife and
have specifically stated the place of occurrence was the
verandah of house of Ataul, therefore, not taking the blood from
the place of occurrence and also not recovering the knife used in
murder cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case, as the
same is based on direct evidence.
22.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Jamiluddin Nasir
v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2014 SC 2587 at
paragraph 48 has held as under :
"48.As far as the contention made on behalf of the
Appellant that non-production of the weapon used in the
attack is fatal to the case of the prosecution is concerned,
the reliance placed upon by the learned Additional Solicitor
General to the decision reported in Ram Singh v. State of
Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 339 would meet the said
contention. In paragraphs 8 and 10, this Court has also
held that the non-production of the weapon used in the
attack is neither fatal to the prosecution case nor any
adverse inference can be drawn on that score. Therefore,
the said submission is also rejected."
22.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Singh vs.
Mahabeer Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 2016 Supreme
Court 5160 at paragraph 36 has held as under :
"36. A related contention raised on behalf of the
respondents is that the story of marriage was introduced
for the first time by the prosecution witnesses during trial
and the same was not even proved. However, we must note
the observations of the learned Trial Judge which were to
the effect that the statements of the prosecution witnesses
under Section 162 Cr.P.C. were conspicuously silent on this
part, thereby implying that the Investigating Officer did not
care to inquire about it during investigation. Thus, in the
light of the position of law examined above vis-a-vis effect
of lapses in the investigation, we are not prepared to
dispense with the accusation merely on this point
- 15 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
especially when the Trial Court concluded that there was no
material contradiction in the statements of PW1 and PW5."
22.3 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Yadav @
Guddu vs. The State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2022 Livelaw
(SC) 217 has held that the evidence of eye-witness cannot be
discarded only for the reason that he allegedly did not raise any
alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being
ferociously assaulted and stabbed.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the
appellant has no motive to commit the murder of the deceased and it
was Azad Sheikh who had strong motive from whom the deceased
had borrowed money and same was not returned to him. As such,
there is no reason to believe why the appellant would commit the
murder of the deceased.
24. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not
tenable, since, the motive of any occurrence is always hidden in the
mind of the offender. Moreover, this case is based on direct evidence
and in a case of direct evidence, the evidence of motive has no
relevance. Therefore, even if, the motive of the occurrence against
the appellant is not proved, on the basis of the same, the trustworthy
and unblemished testimony of the eye-witness cannot be discredited.
24.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v.
Anirudhsing and another reported in AIR 1997 SC 2780 at
paragraph 45 has held as under :
"45.It is then contended by Shri Sushil Kumar that Accused
No. 1 had no motive and the prosecution has failed to prove
it. We find no force in the contention. The motive gets
- 16 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
locked upon into mind of the makers and it is difficult to
fathom it. The evidence of Acharya P.A. to the deceased,
who too turned hostile to the prosecution speaks of motive.
Equally, others have spoken but their evidence is not on
record. If motive is proved that would supply a chain of
links but absence thereof is not a ground to reject
the prosecution case. So we reject the contention of the
learned Counsel in that behalf too."
24.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar and
Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2010 (1) SCC
(Cri) 1204 at paragraph 7 has held as under :
"7. Mr Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel who
appeared in both the appeals attacked the judgment of the
High Court and the trial court firstly, contending that there
was absolutely no reason for the accused persons to
assault the deceased and no motive has been attributed to
all these accused persons. The learned counsel suggested
that basically the story of the prosecution in the absence of
any apparent motive became extremely doubtful. We are
not impressed by this submission since motive in a criminal
case is irrelevant where evidence of the eyewitnesses is
available. In this case, there were as many as three
eyewitnesses one of whom was the father of the deceased.
Therefore, the question of absence of motive would have
no importance whatsoever."
25. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
though denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence
against him but he did not say why he was implicated in this case,
though he simply stated himself to be innocent.
26. After critical appraisal of the prosecution case and the evidence
available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the
learned Court below has committed no illegality or infirmity in
recording the findings of conviction of accused/appellant. As such
there appears no justification for interference by this Court in the
impugned judgment of conviction. The judgment of conviction and
- 17 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
order of sentence dated 8th February, 2013 passed by the learned
trial court is, hereby, affirmed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
27. The appellant is already in jail and he is directed to serve out
the remaining sentence, as imposed by the learned trial court. Let
the lower court's record be sent to the court concerned forthwith
along with a copy of this judgment.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 26th April, 2023.
Rohit Pandey/A.F.R
