Jharkhand High Court
Matlu Singh & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 June, 2012
Bench: R.K.Merathia., D.N.Upadhyay.
Cr. Appeal No. 1575 of 2003 (D.B.)
With
Cr. Appeal No. 117 of 2008(D.B.)
Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2003
passed by Shri Arun Kumar Datta, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at
Tenughat in S.T.No.273 of 2001/ 37 of 2003 and against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2007 passed by Shri C. Tanti, 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T.No.273(A)/2001.
1. Matlu Singh.
2. Sudhir Singh.
3. Sokha Singh.
4. Mannu Singh.
5. Dinu Singh.
6. Nakul Singh. ... ... ... ... ...Appellants
[in Cr. Appeal No.1575/03]
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... ... ...Respondent
With
Kinu Singh. ... ... ... ... ...Appellant
[in Cr. Appeal No.117/08]
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... ... ...Respondent
For the Appellants: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
[in Cr. Appeal No.1575 of 2003]
Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate.
[in Cr. Appeal No. 117 of 2008]
For the Respondent: A.P.P.
P R E S E N T
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.MERATHIA.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY.
-----------
By Court Both these appeals arise from the common incident but from different
judgments. Cr. Appeal No.1575/03 arises from the judgment dated 4.9.2003
passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in
Sessions Trial No. 273 of 2001/37 of 2003 convicting the appellants under
Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life.
2. Cr. Appeal No.117 of 2008 arises from the judgment dated 30 th
November, 2007 passed by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at
Tenughat in S.T.No.273(A)/2001 convicting the appellant under Sections
302/34 I.P.C. sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that P.W. 3 (Md. Nijamuddin Ansari)
lodged his Fard Bayan on 7.6.2001 at about 9 a.m. before the police that he
along with his father Ahmad Ansari (deceased) and cousin Ajimul Ansari
(P.W.2) were going to plough their field. When Ahmad Ansari started
ploughing the field, the appellants surrounded him having 'Tangi' in their
hands. AppellantMatlu Singh inflicted 'Tangi' blow on the neck of Ahmad
Ansari due to which he could not run and fell down then other appellants
started inflicting 'Tangi' blows. The informant was afraid and raised alarm on
2.
which the villagers assembled. Some of the villagers have seen the appellants
inflicting injuries. The motive of alleged incident was that the appellants had
suspicion that the informant party used to elope the cattle.
4. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses. P.W. 1,2 & 3 are projected as eye
witnesses but P.W. 1 in paragraph No.17 clearly said that he along with P.W. 2, 3
& 6 saw the appellants fleeing away from the place of occurrence from the
distance of about 100 yards.
5. After carefully examining the evidences on record, it is not possible to
believe that P.W. 1, 2 & 3 are the eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence.
According to the informant, P.W. 1 & 3 went to the Police Station and lodged
F.I.R. but no such F.I.R. has been brought on record. There are other material
contradictions also in the evidence of the witnesses. It has also come on record
that the deceased was involved in some criminal cases. There are material
variations in the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 & 3 regarding their presence at the place
of occurrence and these evidences are also at variance with the evidence of I.O.
(P.W. 4).
6. After hearing the parties at length and going through the record
carefully, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellants. Accordingly,
judgments impugned in both the appeals are set aside.
7. The appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in
any other case.
[R.K.Merathia,J.]
[D.N.Upadhyay,J.]
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 19th June, 2012
P.K.S./N.A.F.R.