Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy ... vs Abdullah Ansari And Ors on 9 August, 2017
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H.C. Mishra, Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No.7 of 2016
with
I.A. No.919 of 2016
with
I.A. No.918 of 2016
The State of Jharkhand
through Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara .... Appellant
Versus
1. Abdullah Ansari
2. Nizamuddin Ansari
3. Jamiruddin Ansari
4. Sabir Alam .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
For the Appellants : Ms. Laxmi Murmu, Advocate
-----
7 / 9.08.2017The defect, pointed out by the Office, is ignored.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant State.
3. This acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant State, against the Judgment dated 11th August 2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in S.T. No.75 of 2012, whereby, the respondents, who were facing the trial for the offences under Section 302 / 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, have been acquitted of the charges, after trial.
4. The present appeal has been filed after the delay of 85 days and I.A. No.919 of 2016 has been filed for condonation of the delay, whereas I.A. No.918 of 2016 has been filed for leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal.
5. The impugned Judgment shows that the deceased was assaulted while he was returning home on the TATA Magic vehicle, driven by the informant. At the place of occurrence, one black coloured Pulsar Motorcycle came with three persons riding the same, out of whom two persons had covered their faces by black cloths. They stopped the TATA Magic vehicle of the informant. In the meantime, another red coloured TVS Motorcycle came, on which also, there were three persons, covering their faces. One of the culprits pulled the deceased to the side of the road and assaulted him by firearm. Thereafter all of them fled away. It was stated in the FIR that the deceased told the driver that he had been assaulted by his enemies, and thereafter the driver quickly proceeded with the injured towards his house, and called his family members. The family members of the -2- deceased informed the driver that they had enmity with the accused respondents. The injured was brought to hospital, where in course of treatment he died. On the basis of the FIR, the investigation was made and charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, who were ultimately put to trial in the Trial Court.
6. The impugned Judgment shows that there is only one eyewitness to the occurrence, who is the driver of the TATA Magic vehicle, who had turned hostile and had not identified the accused persons in the Court.
7. The other witnesses, who are relatives and neighbours of the deceased, namely, PW-1 Lukman Ansari, PW-3 Barkat Ansari, the brother of the deceased, PW-4, Md. Kamruddin Ansari, PW-6 Enatullah, PW-7 Reshma Khatoon and PW-8 Md. Sanaul Ansari, have deposed that when the deceased was brought to his house on the TATA magic Vehicle, he was still conscious and he disclosed to them that the accused respondents had assaulted him. Thereafter, the deceased was brought to the hospital and he died in course of treatment. PW-2 Shekhawat @ Shekhauddin Ansari had stated that he was informed by the driver of the vehicle that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased.
8. PW-9 is Doctor Sunil Kumar Kisku, who had examined the deceased on 22.2.2012, while he was alive, and he had also conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, when he died. He has stated that the patient was brought in unconsciousness stage with the bullet injury on the left side of the perital region. He was given first aid and referred for better treatment to PMCH, Dhanbad. On 23.2.2012, he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and he found that in the brain cavity the bullet was embedded, which was the cause of the death of the deceased.
9. The informant, PW-5 Rajauddin Ansari has stated that after the assault, the deceased became unconscious and he never gained consciousness.
10. Thus, from the evidence of the informant, who is the only eye witness to the occurrence, supported by the medical evidence on record, it is apparent that the deceased was not in a position to give any dying declaration before PWs, who claimed that the deceased was conscious and he informed them that he was assaulted by the accused respondents.
-3-
11. The I.O. of the case was examined as PW-10 and he has stated that those witnesses had not named the accused persons before him, which clearly shows that the interested witnesses had made improvements in their original statements before the police, while deposing in the Court during trial.
12. The Trial Court below, taking into consideration these facts, has acquitted the respondents of the charges. We are of the considered view that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court below, worth interference by this Court.
13. Accordingly, we do not find any valid reason either for granting leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal, or for condoning of delay of 85 days in filing this appeal. As such, both the aforesaid interlocutory applications stand dismissed.
14. Consequently, the acquittal appeal also stands dismissed, being hopelessly barred by limitation.
(H. C. Mishra, J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) R.Kumar