Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1963
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Amar Sah - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 226 of 2006
Decided On : 18-01-2018
Manoj Kumar, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and expert evidence, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Arms Act - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act - 27 of the Arms Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for attempting to murder the informant by firing a pistol at him. The prosecution's case was supported by eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code based on the evidence presented. However, the court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act due to the prosecution's failure to prove the seizure of any arms or provide evidence from a ballistic expert.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the absence of seizure list for arms, and the lack of evidence from a ballistic expert.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the lack of evidence regarding the seizure of arms and the absence of testimony from a ballistic expert led to the acquittal of the appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code were confirmed, while the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of that charge.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.
2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2006 and Order of Sentence dated 27.01.2006 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dumka in Sessions Case No.27 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years. He has also been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act for which he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and it has been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief as per the fardbeyan of the informant Masudan Sah that on 29.08.2004 at about 7:00 a.m. when the informant was at the door of his house, the appellant-accused Amar Sah along with co-accused persons came and abused him. The informant objected to the same and asked the accused persons to go to the police station upon which the appellant-accused Amar Sah took out a pistol and fired at the informant with an intention to kill. The pellet hit on the head of the informant and broke his teeth. When the informant tried to flee away, the appellant fired a second round which hit the informant on his chest. The informant fell down and the appellant-accused fled away. On the basis of this fardbeyan, police registered Saraiyahat P.S. Case No.117 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No.847 of 2004 and took up the investigation of the case. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case for the offence punishable under Section 307/324/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, charges for the offence punishable under Section 307/324/326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act were framed against the appellant and on the appellant-accused pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined seven witness and proved documents. No witness, was examined on behalf of the defence but the defence proved three documents.
6. P.W.6-Masudan Sah is the victim and informant of this case. He has stated that the occurrence was of 29.08.2004 at 7:00 a.m. He was in his house. The accused persons came and abused him. P.W.6 forbade the accused persons to abuse him upon which the coaccused persons commanded the appellant-accused Amar Sah to kill P.W.6- Masudan Sah. Amar Sah took out a pistol and fired at P.W.6- Masudan Sah with intention to kill him. P.W.6- Masudan Sah sustained injuries on his head and fell down. P.W.6- Masudan Sah again got up and tried to flee away. The appellant fired the second round which hit him on his chest and thereafter the appellantaccused fled away. P.W.6- Masudan Sah in para no.13 of his crossexamination has described the place of occurrence in detail with its boundaries and nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discard or disbelieve his testimony. On being proved by him, his signature on fardbeyan, has been marked as Ext.1.
7. P.W.1- Shikandar Sah, P.W.2- Pitambar Sah and P.W.3- Shambhu Sah all the three have stated about the appellant-accused with the co-accused persons abusing the P.W.6- Masudan Sah in his house and the appellant fired at P.W.6- Masudan Sah causing injury on his head and he also fired the second shot causing injury on the chest of P.W.6- Masudan Sah. P.W.1- Shikandar Sah, P.W.2- Pitambar Sah and P.W.3- Shambhu Sah have not stated anything of much importance in their cross-examination.
8. P.W.4- Ram Kinkar Sah and P.W.5- Surendra Sah have been tendered for cross-examination.
9. P.W.7- Dr. Om Prakash has stated that he examined P.W.6- Masudan Sah on 29.08.2004 at 9:45 a.m. and had found the following injuries:-
(i) Pellet injury (puncture w
