- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.6.2009 passed by Shri Prabhu Nath Lal, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saraikella in Sessions Trial No. 155 of 1998 by which judgment learned Sessions Judge found the appellant Anjan Chatterjee guilty for the offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default further S.I. for 3 months. The appellant was further convicted u/s 27 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case was started on the basis of the fardbeyan given on 1.8.1997 at 22.45 hrs. to Sri R. Mishra, Investigating Officer of the Adityapur Police Station by the informant, P.W. 1 Tulsi Das Mukherjee stating therein that today in the evening he was at home and the light went off, then he came out of his house and was standing on the gully which is north of his house. Then suddenly from the western side some sound came and he received bullet injury on his thigh. Hearing the sound, family members of his house came out and took him to Tata Main Hospital (T.M. H.) where he was treated. He became stunned by the sudden firing. He has stated that he has got land dispute with his brother -in -law, Dhirendra Nath Chatterjee since many years ago and the case is pending in the Court of Munsif, Saraikella and the said case is fixed for hearing on 5.8.1997. Anjan Chatterjee S/o Dhirendra Nath Chatterjee had given threatening from before that land which he has kept in his possession belong to his father, and stated that he will cause his death. Due to that Anjan Chatterjee had fired upon him for committing his murder which hit him on the thigh, since he was standing on a higher platform. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the instant case there is no eye witness except the informant, P.W. 2 and evidence of the informant and that of the Investigating Officer in the F.I.R. are contradictory to each other. Although as per the F.I.R. informant has not seen the accused -appellant, Anjan Chatterjee firing upon him but in trial named him, since he wanted to improve his case in the court. Moreover, the doctor did not find firearm injury on the person of the informant and hence, the entire prosecution case is doubtful and the appellant is fit to be acquitted.
(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution has fully proved the case in his evidence and the doctor has found injury which was grievous in nature. Appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial court.;