Taufique Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand

By Court:-

Heard Mr. Oishi Das, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.12.2004 passed by the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Garhwa in S.T. No.84 of 2004 arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No.265 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. Case No.890 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under sections 307 and 387 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under section 387 of IPC and R.I. for 3 years along with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under section 307 with default stipulation and R.I. for 3 years for the offence under section 27 of Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 04.11.2003, the appellant, Taufique Khan came to the house of Sakunat Bibi, who happens to be his mother-in-law and runs a business of purchasing and selling of coal, asked for ransom in relation to her business operations. It is further alleged that the informant’s mother-in-law has expressed her inability to pay the ransom, then the appellant went away threatening her to face dire consequences. On the same day at about 7:30 pm, the appellant again came to his mother-in-law’s house and opened fire upon his mother-in-law with intention to kill her but she escaped from the bullets and no injury was caused to her. After hearing the sound of gunshot, the local villagers rushed towards the house of his mother-in-law and seeing the crowd gathering, the appellant fled by extending his threatening to the mother-in-law of the informant.

On the basis of fardbayan of the informant, Garhwa P.S. Case No.265 of 2003 was instituted for the offences under sections 307 and 387 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T No.84 of 2004 was registered. The appellant has denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried.

In course of trial altogether, 8 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution namely:-

P.W.1-Jasmuddin Ansari P.W.2-Firoj Ansari P.W.3-Khalil Khan P.W.4-Sahnaj Bibi P.W.5-Jagarnath P.W.6-Sakunat Bibi(victim) P.W.7-Sakila Bibi P.W.8-A.S.I. Nand Kishore Singh (I.O.)

Apart from oral evidence, the prosecution has also adduced the following documentary evidence; Ext.1-Fardbayan Ext.2- Formal FIR

On the other hand, one defence witness, namely, Rajesh Ram has been examined by the defence. However, no documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication.

Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 307 of IPC is absolutely unfounded and baseless as there is no recovery of firearms from the possession of the appellant nor there is any evidence about firing aiming to the informant and admittedly, no injury has been caused to the informant. It is further submitted that there is simple allegation of demanding ransom without disclosing the amount for continuing illegal coal business of mother-in-law of the informant. The appellant has remained in custody for 1 year and 4 months in this case and he has sufficiently been punished for the offence under section 387 of IPC. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under section 307 of IPC and section 27 of Arms Act may be set aside and for the offence under section 387 of IPC, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of learned trial court on merits and submitted that P.W.6, the victim has categorically proved her case and there is nothing in her cross-examination to disbelieve her testimony. It is further submitted that the appellant has criminal antecedents of such type of offence. Hence, learned trial court very wisely appreciated the evidence available on record and passed the reasoned judgment, which requires no interference and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side.

It appears that altogether 8 witnesses have been examined in this case.

The most important witness is the victim, Sakunat Bibi (P.W.6). According to her evidence, the present appellant asked her ransom for continuing her coal business about 15 days prior to the occurrence. Thereafter on the date of occurrence, the appellant again came and demanded ransom from her, otherwise, she will have to face dire consequences. When the victim (P.W.6) expressed her inability to pay the ransom amount, the appellant went away with threatening to arrange money and he will come again. She further states that the appellant came again and demanded money and when she declined, he fired upon her but she fell down and saved herself.

Other witnesses of the facts have also corroborated the above facts as hearsay witnesses from the victim.

It appears that P.W.6, the victim in her fardbeyabn has stated that the appellant has opened fire against her but neither the fired bullet nor the firearm from which fire was opened has been seized in this case and no seizure list has been prepared. Therefore, the testimony of the victim (P.W.6) regarding firing upon her cannot be believed in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 307 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act does not appear to be justified under law and accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 307 of IPC and section 25 of Arms Act is hereby set aside.

So far the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 387 is concerned, there is allegation against the petitioner that he put the victim in fear for the ransom money and the victim in her examination in chief has deposed the same thing as stated in the FIR and in her cross-examination, has stated that prior 10 days of occurrence, the appellant has demanded the ransom. Hence, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 387 of IPC is affirmed.

So far the sentence awarded to the appellant under section 387 of IPC is concerned, learned trial court has awarded the imprisonment for 3 years for the said offence, out of which, the appellant has already remained in custody for 1 years and 4 months.

Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of offence committed by the appellant and also in view of the fact that the case is of the year 2004 and more than two decades has been elapsed as well as neither the ransom amount was disclosed by any of the witnesses including the victim nor any amount of ransom was given to be proved. Hence, I feel it just and proper to reduce the imprisonment already undergone by the appellant for the offence under section 387of IPC.

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with modification in conviction and sentence as stated above.

Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.