Jharkhand High Court
Heera Lal Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2007 of 2004
----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated
04.11.2004 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Dumka
in Sessions Case No. 257 of 2003/ 38 of 2004.)
---
Heera Lal Jha ....Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
--
06/25.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, both dated 04.11.2004, passed by the learned 4th
Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 257 of
2003/38 of 2004; whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 307 I.P.C and 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 5 years under Sections 307 I.P.C and R.I. for 3 years under
Section 27 of the Arms Act. It was further ordered that both the sentences
shall run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant was moving
with one Munna Mistri by motorcycle then the accused and other person
have tried to stop him and opened fire upon him, which hit on the right arm
of the informant, causing bleeding injury. Brother-in-law of the accused has
also fired upon the informant, which passed from the side of right ear.
Thereafter, the informant fled away on his motorcycle. The accused persons
have tried to kill the informant since there is a land dispute between the
parties.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant made the following
submissions:
(i) There is no evidence on record to show the complicity of
the appellant in the alleged occurrence.
(ii) There are contradictions between the deposition of the
informant and the father of the informant about the place of
occurrence or about the injury.
(iii) Learned trial court has passed the order without
considering the fact that there was an admitted land dispute
between the parties, as such due to that reason the appellant
has falsely been implicated in the instant case with an ulterior
motive.
(iv) Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the
appellant; as such his conviction for the same is wrong and
bad in law.
Relying upon the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prayed
for acquittal of the appellant.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for acquittal and
submits that no error has been committed by learned trial court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the documents available on L.C.R, it is evident that P.W. 1, Munna
Mistry, who accompanied the informant in the motorcycle when the alleged
incident took place, has been declared hostile. As a matter of fact, he was
said to be the eye witness of the occurrence.
Further, from the deposition of the informant-P.W.3 himself, after
firing he fled away on the same motorcycle, but the accused person also
chased them and when he entered in his house, the accused person opened
fire, which hit on the wall and Benjamin Hembram (P.W.2) and Barnwash
Hembram (P.W.6) came there and witness the occurrence. This deposition of
the informant is also demolished by the fact that P.W.2 has deposed that he
is hearsay witness and P.W.6 did not support the prosecution case and that is
the reason P.W.6 has been declared hostile. Thus, it is evident from the
record that no eye witness has supported the case.
Further, P.W.5, who is father of the informant has also claimed to
be an eye witness. However, from perusal of the fardbeyan coupled with the
deposition of the informant, it does not transpire that P.W.5 was the witness
of the occurrence.
It also transpires from record that the alleged incident was done
by the country made pistol, but unfortunately the prosecution has failed to
seize the country made pistol from the appellant. In other words, since no
seizure of pistol has been done, the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms
Act becomes doubtful and the appellant deserves benefit of doubt.
7. Admittedly, from perusal of the F.I.R coupled with the deposition
of P.Ws, it is evident that there were land dispute between the parties and
thus false implication cannot be ruled out.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the appellant deserves
benefit of doubt and learned trial court has failed to consider the aspects
discussed hereinabove. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence, both dated 04.11.2004 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions
Judge (F.T.C), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 257 of 2003/38 of 2004, is
hereby, quashed and set aside. As a result, the instant appeal stands allowed.
9. The appellant shall be discharged from the liability of his bail
bond.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial Court and
the LCR be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
jk
