- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the impugned judgment dated 29.7.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 300 of 2000 by Sri Akhileshwar Jha, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum whereby and whereunder respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were not found guilty for the offence under Section 120 -B, IPC read with Section 302, IPC and respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were not found guilty for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC and respondent No. 1 was also not found guilty under Section 302, IPC and they were accordingly acquitted. However, respondent No. 1, Manjar Hussain was found guilty for the offence under Section 25(1 -b) Arms Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Informant Rahul Sawa also filed the aforesaid criminal revision against the impugned judgment under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr PC.
(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan of Rahul Sawa recorded on 9.2.2000 at 8.15 hours by Ramakant Prasad, Officer -in -Charge Bistupur PS at Jublee Park, Jamshedpur where the father of the informant was shot down dead in course of his morning walk and the case was instituted in which suspicion was cast on respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to have caused the murder of his father Hari Prasad Sawa in conspiracy with his associates for the reasons that there were enmity existing and alive between his father on the one hand and aforesaid respondents on the other hand and they were also on litigating terms with the deceased in respect of their business regarding Akashdeep Builders, Golmuri In course of investigation the complicity of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 also transpired in the commission of the murder of the deceased and they were also booked for trial along with respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. It has been submitted by the learned APP that the learned Court below did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case and the materials available on the record and has come to a wrong conclusion and has committed a manifest error in acquitting respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and he ought to have considered the statement of PWs 1, 7, 9, 10 and 16 recorded under Section 164, Cr PC in view of the ratio of the case of Shyamchander Hembram V/s. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) reported in 2002 (3) JLJR 698. It has also been submitted that there is sufficient evidence on the record to establish the case of conspiracy between the respondents for the commission of the murder of the deceased and the learned Court below did not consider the said evidence in proper perspective and has erred in acquitting the respondents. It has also been submitted that Rs. 5.50 lakhs was withdrawn from the bank by respondent No. 4, K.B. Sinha prior to the occurrence and the said money was handed over to respondent No. 1 for committing the murder of the deceased which has been admitted by PW 16, Parvez Ahmad in his statement under Section 164, Cr PC recorded by PW 8, K.K.Singh, Judicial Magistrate.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 has submitted that the learned Court below has properly weighed and scrutinized the evidence on the record and has rightly come to the finding that the respondents are not guilty and there is also no illegality or any perversity in the impugned judgment of the learned Court below acquitting the accused, as per the evidence on the record, and it does not require any interference therein. It has also been submitted for the respondents that there is no question of any miscarriage of justice in this case and the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondents is not per se bad.;