Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Mafijuddin Sk. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.125 of 2013
Decided on : 26-04-2023
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Sections 302/342 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to murder under Sections 302/342 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment emphasized the admissibility of res gestae evidence and the corroboration of ocular evidence with medical evidence. The court also addressed the significance of motive in a case based on direct evidence and the admissibility of evidence even in the absence of recovery of the weapon used in the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of a man who had borrowed money and failed to return it. The eyewitnesses and medical evidence supported the prosecution's case. The appellant appealed, claiming that the judgment was based on wrong appreciation of evidence and lack of motive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eyewitness testimony was consistent and credible, and the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case. The lack of recovery of the murder weapon and absence of motive did not discredit the eyewitness testimony. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of res gestae evidence, corroboration of ocular evidence with medical evidence, significance of motive in a case based on direct evidence, and the impact of lack of recovery of the murder weapon on the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the admissibility of res gestae evidence and the corroboration of ocular evidence with medical evidence. It also highlighted that motive is not always necessary in a case based on direct evidence, and the lack of recovery of the murder weapon does not discredit eyewitness testimony.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment of conviction and ordered the appellant to serve out the remaining sentence.
JUDGMENT :
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 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 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/-.
9. The aforesaid convict being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th February, 2013 preferred
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 and assault under Section 324, ruling that credible eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence met the burden of proof beyond reasonabl....
Direct eyewitness testimony, if credible, suffices for conviction regardless of motive, as established in this case involving murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
The court established that intent to kill can be inferred from the nature and severity of injuries inflicted, and direct eyewitness testimony, when corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to ....
The testimony of injured witnesses is highly credible, and direct evidence can establish guilt without needing to prove motive.
The court established that a conviction for murder can be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that the evidence forms a complete chain that leads to the only reasonable conclu....
In cases of direct evidence, the presence or absence of motive is less significant, and credible eyewitness testimony can suffice to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The credibility of the prosecution's evidence, including the testimony of eye-witnesses, prompt first information report, and medical evidence, is crucial in confirming a conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
