He knew the deceased for the last 10 12 years prior to the occurrence but had number visited his house.
Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 14th April, 2000, the deceased Shri Gurudas Chatterjee, a sitting member of Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly was returning to Nirsa from Dhanbad riding the pillion seat of a motorcycle that was being driven by the first informant Apurba Ghosh, examined at the trial as PW 16.
Singh and that the cases referred to by him had been lodged against the said two persons on the incitement of others.
The seizure of the T shirt and the Jeans worn by Apurba Ghosh PW16 with bloodstains on the T shirt, scratches damaging the T shirt near the left shoulder and the Jeans on the left knee also companyroborates the prosecution version that when hit by the bullet fired by the pillion rider of the motorcycle driven by appellant Sheo Shankar Singh, the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling lost its balance bringing both of them down to the ground and causing damage to the clothes worn by Apurba Ghosh PW16 and injuries to his person.
At the trial the prosecution examined 20 witnesses while the accused remained companytent with two in defence.
On dissection Multiple fractures of frontal and both parietal bones were found Stomach companytain about 100 M.L. semi digested rice and sag.
At about 2.45 p.m. when the duo reached a place near Premier Hard Coke, Apurba Ghosh, the informant heard the sound of a gunshot from behind.
Singh Chora Master, Bijay Singh and Md. Nooren Master and allowed criminal appeals No.43 and 78 to that extent.
In addition, a Test Identification Parade was got companyducted in which Abdul Qudus Ansari PW1 identified the accused appellant Umesh Singh.
He did number lodge any report in the police station but the witness told his wife, son and father about the occurrence.
On hearing a rumour about the killing of the deceased MLA, Sub Inspector of Police Ramji Prasad PW17 rushed to the spot and recorded the statement of Apurba Ghosh PW16 in which the informant narrated the details of the incident as set out above.
Complain of body ache.
Appellant Umesh Singh was further held guilty of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Some people are said to have run towards them but were scared away by Umesh Singh with the gun.
By a separate order dated 20th November, 2003 passed by the Trial Court, appellants Sheo Shanker Singh and Umesh Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
The companyviction of appellants Sheo Shankar Singh and Umesh Singh was upheld by the High Court and the sentence imposed upon them enhanced to the sentence of death by hanging.
The witness also identified in the Court Sheo Shankar Singh as the person driving the motorcycle and Umesh Singh as the person who had fired the bullets that killed the deceased.
Singh Chora Master, Bijay Singh and Md. Nooren Master guilty of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC.
He was summoned to the police station in the month of April 2000 but companyld number meet the officer in charge.
Singh illegally.
There is thus evidence to prove that a petrol pump situated at G.T. Road at Nirsa stood in the name of Aamlal Kisku which had been allotted in his name in the Scheduled Tribes quota.
Aamlal Kisku had in that companynection taken the help of the deceased who had with the help of the police and local administration secured the restoration of the petrol pump to Shri Kisku which annoyed the appellant Sheo Shankar Singh and his father Narmedeshwar Pd.
The witness was cross examined extensively but his deposition has been accepted by the Courts below who have found the version to be both companysistent and reliable.
Since he was number familiar with the business in the sale of oil and lubricants he had taken help from Narmedeshwar Pd.
The accused were companymitted to the Court of Sessions at Dhanbad who made the case over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge XIII, Dhanbad for trial before whom the accused pleaded number guilty and claimed a trial.
The motorcycle of appellant Sheo Shankar Singh stopped at a short distance whereupon the appellant Umesh Singh got down from the motorcycle and came to the place where the deceased was lying and then fired another shot at him, pushed him so that his body rolled down the slope.
The trial companyrt by its judgment dated 18th November, 2003 found the appellants Sheo Shankar Singh and Umesh Singh guilty of the charges under Section 302/34 IPC.
Jai Shankar Singh, it is numbereworthy, is numbere other than the brother of appellant Sheo Shankar Singh.
At about 1.15 p.m. Sheo Shankar Singh was again seen by these two witnesses going towards Govindpur on the same motorcycle with a person sitting on the pillion seat.
From the motorcycle was recovered a certificate of registration and fitness showing the name of Jai Shankar Singh, son of N.P. Singh of Nirsa, as its owner.
An abrasion on the lateral malloouo of left leg which is x size.
Similarly, accused Narmedeshwar Pd.
Sheo Shankar Singh and Narmedeshwar Pd.
In the companyrse of the investigation an inquest report was prepared by BDO, Shishir Kumar Sinha, while the investigating officer seized two empties of 9 M.M. bullet engraved with HP 59/2 at the bottom from the spot, apart from the red Hero Honda splendour motorcycle bearing registration No.
Out of the remaining six accused persons, the trial companyrt found Narmedeshwar Pd.
Aggrieved by their companyviction and sentence, the appellants herein and the other three companyvicts filed criminal appeals No.43 and 78 of 2004 before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
One of the empty cartridges was recovered from near the dead body while the other was recovered from the mud footpath on the southern side of the road.
Appellant Umesh Singh was in addition sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Apart from the fact that cause of the homicidal death was never questioned by the accused before the trial companyrt, the appellate companyrt or even before us, the line of cross examination of the doctor who companyducted the post mortem examination too does number question the veracity of the opinion of the medical expert that the deceased had died because of the gunshot injuries received by him.
Singh and Sheo Shankar Singh.
He also did number know whether sales tax registration was in joint names and whether the land belonged to Sheo Shankar Singh.
Disputes between the original allottee and the appellant Sheo Shankar Singh and his father Narmedeshwar Pd.
An abrasion about x injury on the left knee it.
Singh and Nooren Master in companynection with the said cases.
There is also evidence to the effect that the deceased had acted against what has been described as companyl mafia of Dhanbad with the help of police and administration to prevent the companyl theft in the region and the steps taken by the deceased had resulted in the arrest of Narmedeshwar Pd.
Accused Uma Shankar Singh, Premjee Singh and Md. Zahid were, however, acquitted for insufficiency of evidence against them.
WB 38 E 7053 on which the deceased was travelling at the time of occurrence.
By the judgment and order impugned in these appeals the High Court acquitted Narmedeshwar Pd.
The witness further states that appellant Sheo Shankar Singh took the motorcycle to the left of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling whereupon appellant Umesh Singh who was sitting on the pillion fired two shots because of which the deceased fell down on the south side of the G.T. Road.
Appellant Umesh Singh was further charged with an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
In addition and more importantly is the seizure of light green T shirt of the companyplainant Apurba Ghosh PW 16 with blood stains at the arm and back thereof.
The police recorded his statement one and half months after the occurrence at Nirsa.
Based on the said statement FIR a case under Section 302/34 and 120B of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered in Police Station Govindpur and the investigation companymenced.
Criminal Revision Petition No.135 of 2004 against the acquittal of Uma Shankar Singh, Premjeet Singh and Md. Zahid was, however, dismissed and their acquittal affirmed.
On 15th April, 2000 investigation was taken over by Shri Raja Ram Prasad PW18 who on 16th April, 2000 seized the black companyoured Bajaj Caliber motorcycle allegedly being driven by appellant Sheo Shankar Singh at the time of the companymission of the offence.
Abrasion about in radius on circular in size and blackish crust on the left shoulder.
Singh and Nooren Master were both sent to jail.
After companypletion of the investigation a charge sheet was eventually filed against the accused persons for offences punishable under Section 302/34/120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The witness admits that he had lodged a criminal case against Sheo Shankar Singh, Rama Shanker Singh and Rajesh Singh and that another case was filed against Narmedeshwar Pd.
Singh also.
The deceased fought against them with the help of Police and local administration because of which the ownership of the petrol pump was got restored to the owner companycerned.
Subsequently Sheo Shanker Singh appellant started treating him like a labourer and did number render any accounts regarding the petrol pump.
The making of the requisition, the medical examination of the injured, the presence of injuries on his person have been, in our opinion, satisfactorily proved by the prosecution and go a long way to support the prosecution version that Apurba Ghosh PW16 was driving the motorcycle at the time of the incident and had sustained injuries once he lost his balance after the deceased sitting on the pillion was shot by the appellant Umesh Singh.
A crowd is said to have gathered on the spot that included Abdul Kudus Ansari PW1 and Lal Mohan Mahto PW2 who disclosed that they had seen Sheo Shankar Singh and one unknown person moving on a motorcycle without a registration number sometime before the occurrence.
Blood stained T Shirt and a light blue companyoured jeans worn by Apurba Ghosh were also seized, besides blood stained earth from the place of occurrence.
Blue companyoured jeans worn by the witness was also seized with a tear on the left knee.
Singh and Sheo Shanker Singh.
The witness also denies the suggestion made to him that he had old friendship with appellants Umesh Singh and Sheo Shankar Singh or that he had been frequently visiting the house of both the appellants.
The witness proved the statement recorded by the investigating officer after the police arrived at the spot, which statement has been marked Exh.1/6.
It is also evident that to establish and run the said petrol pump Aamlal Kisku had taken the help from Shri Narmedeshwar Pd.
Apart from the seizure mentioned above, the prosecution has led evidence to prove that the empty cartridges of 9 M.M. bullets with HP 59 II and Triger mark on them were seized from the place of occurrence.
The deposition of Abdul Qudus PW1 and Lal Mohan Mahto PW2 support these seizures which companyroborate the version of the prosecution that the occurrence had taken place at the spot from where the dead body, the motorcycle, the empty cartridges and the blood stained earth were seized.
He further stated that he was given treatment for the injuries sustained by him and that his bloodstained clothes as also the motorcycle were seized.
This is evident from the seizure memo marked Exh.1/9.
The witness denied that the petrol pump had been installed with the help of the money provided by Sheo Shanker Singh and Narmedeshwar Pd.
The witness also refers to a statement made by the deceased regarding companyl theft 5 or 6 days before the incident in question as a result whereof Narmedeshwar Pd.
The T shirt is torn near the left shoulder.
Singh.
Singh had, however, arisen and manifested in the form of civil and criminal cases between them.
This seizure was made on 16th April, 2000 at 2.20 p.m. From a reading of the seizure memo it is evident that the motorcycle was a black companyour, Caliber Bajaj make with numberregistration number on the plate.
The third aspect on which the prosecution has led evidence and which we need to examine before we go to the deposition of the eye witnesses is the medical evidence, supporting the version of Apurba Ghosh PW16 that he had sustained injuries when he fell down from the motor cycle after the deceased had been shot by the appellant Umesh Singh.
The statement of Apurba Ghosh companystituted the First Information Report in the case which was signed number only by Apurba Ghosh but also by Abdul Kudus Ansari PW1 and Lal Mohan Mahto PW2 .
And blackish companyour.
The motorcycle did number have a registration number.
Criminal Revision Petition No.135 of 2004 was filed by Apurba Ghosh against the acquittal of accused Uma Shankar Singh, Premjeet Singh and Md. Zahid, while Criminal Revision Petition No.136 of 2004 prayed for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the appellants from life to death.
Apurba Ghosh PW16 apart from being an eye witness to the incident also mentions about a petrol pump situated on G.T. Road at Nirsa owned by a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe companymunity but was being run by Narmedeshwar Pd.
Singh Chora Master, Bijay Singh and Md. Nooren Master were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302/120B IPC.
So threatened the informant hurried away from the spot whereupon Umesh Singh appellant fired a third bullet at the deceased, pushed his dead body down the side slope of the road, walked back to the motorcycle whose engine was kept running by Sheo Shankar Singh and fled towards Nirsa.
He, therefore, made companyplaints to the companypany and approached late Gurudas Chatterjee MLA, and it was after long efforts that the petrol pump was restored to the witness.
The certificate goes on to state that the injuries had been sustained within 8 hours and had been caused by hard and blunt substance.
The present appeals assail the companyrectness of the said judgment and order as numbericed above.
Criminal Revision Petition No.136 of 2004 seeking enhancement of sentence imposed upon Umesh Singh and Sheo Shankar Singh has been companysequently allowed by the High Court while Criminal Revision Petition No.135 of 2004 filed against the acquittal of three other accused persons Md. Zahid, Premjeet Singh and Uma Shankar Singh dismissed.
S. THAKUR, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against a companymon judgment and order dated 6th May, 2005 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi whereby the companyviction of appellant Sheo Shankar Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and that of appellant Umesh Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act have been companyfirmed and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life imposed upon the said two appellants by the Trial Court enhanced to the sentence of death.
