ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. - (1.) THE prosecution story as we find from the record would relate back to 3anuary 18, 2005, few days after the Tsunami disaster. Narayan Singh, the victim was residing along with his family members at his house. Ritta Munda, the appellant was also staying with him. Narayan engaged him as a daily labourer in his field. On the fateful day, Narayan's family was away from the house. He was alone in the house in the company of Ritta. THEy were seen together in the said house in the evening on that day. THE witnesses saw Narayan inside the house, where as Ritta was cutting firewood outside. At 8 p.m P.W. 15 (Prema Kumari) served food to (Narayan and left the house, when she saw Ritta was entering into the house. Next day morning, Narayan was found dead. Ritta was nowhere to be seen. After a chase he was arrested from the jungle after seven days. At least four witnesses said that he left the village late at night along with a suitcase and a Ballam (sphere). While confronted he told "I am going away. I may not live with Narayan who used to quarrel with roe frequency. I have killed him with Kulhadi(axe)".
(2.) THE prosecution examined 31 witnesses whereas Ritta and his coaccused Bishram were examined by the court under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. THE defence did not adduce any evidence. THE learned Sessions Judge upon considering the evidence came to the following conclusion:- "So, the following circumstances are firmly established in the case. Firstly, that the accused Ritta lived in the house of the deceased and worked in the agricultural lands of the deceased for a long period and he was found in the house of the deceased in the evening of 18.1.2005 also, but in the early hours of morning on 19.1.2005 when the dead body with marks of grievous injuries was found in the house of the deceased accused Ritta was found having disappeared from the house with all his personal belongings and the accused Ritta has given an explanation which is found to be false. Secondly, that in the very night of the murder the accused Ritta was found by three villagers leaving the village with a suitcase in hand and the accused Ritta confessed his guilt before those villagers. Thirdly, that the accused Ritta was not found any where in the village after the murder and after about 7 days he was found having taken shelter in a hide out inside a jungle from where he had been arrested by the police with a suitcase containing his personal belongings and here also he had taken up a specific plea which he failed to prove also. So, there is no satisfactory explanation of the accused Ritta for such conduct after the murder, and fourthly, that the accused Ritta had a motive behind the murder. All the aforesaid facts and circumstances form a complete chain, which leads to the only conclusion that the accused Ritta is the murderer." The learned Judge held Ritta guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The co-accused Bishram was not found guilty and thus acquitted. Ritta was sentenced for life which he is suffering. He preferred the appeal from the jail. Initially Mr. Hemraj Bahadur, learned advocate, filed the appeal on behalf of Ritta. Mr. Bahadur is indisposed. Hence, we engaged Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned advocate, to appear an behalf of the appellant* Mrs. Nag took us to the evidence in detail to show the discrepancies that we would be discussing hereinafter. Citing those discrepancies Mrs. Nag contended that the accused should be given the' benefit of doubt. She also contended that the accused was not given adequate opportunity to explain his conduct as the learned Judge posed jumbled up questions and the appellant could not properly reply to the same. She prayed for setting aside of the conviction followed by an order of acquittal.
(3.) OPPOSING the appeal Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the discrepancies so highlighted by Mrs. Nag were minor in nature. The witnesses were rustic villagers. They deposed after about sixteen months of the incident. Hence, such discrepancies were usual. In any event, even if those discrepancies were given credence, the concrete evidence, so found by the learned trial judge, completing the chain of events would be so apparent that the order of conviction would be found to be just that did not deserve interference by the court of appeal. Mr. Mandal contended that the victim was found alive lastly in the company of the accused. The accused was duty bound to explain as to how the incident occurred. Soon after the incident the accused fled away from the scene until he was arrested after seven days, that too, after a long chase. Hence, his conduct was also abnormal raising a pointer to him that he could not and did not explain during his examination under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this regard, Mr. Mandal relied on section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Mr. Mandal prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Let us first examine the evidence. The learned trial judge examined each and every evidence in detail. We need not repeat the same. However, we intend to discuss the principal witnesses and the discrepancies highlighted by Mrs. Nag. P.Ws.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 31 were principal witnesses.;