DK SINHA,J. - (1.) THE present appeal arises against the impugned judgment of conviction for the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. and order of sentence dated 29.8.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 139 of 1996 whereby the sole appellant Mukund Murari Singh @ Mangal Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
(2.) THE prosecution story as it stands narrated in the fardbayan (Ext. -3) of the informant Karma Sao (P.W. 2) was that his father Latu Sao (deceased) and mother Sita Devi (deceased) were living together by constructing a house at Village -Karamtoli much prior to the alleged occurrence whereas, their 3 sons including the informant were living in a different village namely Bokwa. On 30.6.1995, the informant came to learn from one Suleman Kharia (not examined) that his parents were lying dead in a pool of blood in their house at Village -Karamtoli and that both were killed with the sharp cutting weapon. On such information the informant along with his elder brother Nageshwar Sahu (P.W.5) and younger brother Mahavir Sao (P.W.3) went to the alleged place of occurrence and found their parents lying dead in the courtyard with the injuries on their head and neck appeared to have been caused with the help of axe by unknown culprit. The informant delivered his statement before the police on the same day on 30.6.1995 at about 17.30 hours in presence of the witness Mahavir Sao (P.W. 3) stating inter alia that his father, aged about 70 years and mother about 65 years had no enmity with anyone and therefore, motive behind their assassination could not be ascertained. The informant did not raise suspicion against anyone and even Suleman Kharia did not convey having seen the assailant. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown but the police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant Mukund Murari Singh @ Mangal Singh for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The witnesses during investigation of the case were consistent that an identity -card and a wristwatch were collected by the police from near the dead bodies but the same neither could be brought on the record in course of trial nor its nexus could be proved with the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant, to begin with, submitted that though as many as 17 witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution during trial but the appellant was convicted upon single uncorroborated testimony of a child witness P.W.4 Sunil Kondulna who was only 10 years old at the relevant time of alleged occurrence.
(3.) P .W. 1 Panchu Naik appears to be a chance witness who deposed that on the date of occurrence while he was returning from Kolebira market, witnessed crowd near the house of Latu Sao. He went there out of curiosity where he found the dead bodies of Latu Sao and his wife lying in the pool of blood. A wristwatch and an identity -card were seized by the police from near the dead bodies, accordingly, a seizure list was prepared and the witness admitted having put his thumb impression thereon. In the cross -examination he admitted having seen only three persons viz. Karma Sao (P.W.2), Biru Sao (not examined) and Nageshwar Sahu (P.W. 5) as also the police personnel. P.W.2 Karma Sao is the informant of the case. He testified by supporting his earlier version that he derived information from one Suleman Kharia about the assassination of his father and mother at Karamtoli and upon such information he went there with his brothers Mahavir Sao (P.W. 3) and Nageshwar Sahu (P.W. 5). Nevertheless, he made certain development by testifying that he witnessed the assailant Mukund Murari Singh @ Mangal Singh (appellant) running away after commission of murder to whom he identified when he arrived at the scene with his brothers. The informant P.W. 2 identified the appellant also in the dock. He found injuries on the dead bodies of his father and mother caused by sharp cutting weapon and testified that a wristwatch and an identity -card were also found there. The police in the meantime arrived and recorded his statement in presence of his younger brother Mahavir Sao. In the cross -examination, he admitted that he and his brothers were living at a different Village -Bokwa, at the distance of 1/2 k.m. from the Village -Karamtoli where his parents had settled down. This witness further made development by testifying that he was apprised by Suleman Kharia that altercation was going on there and that it took about 10 to 12 minutes in covering the distance from his village to the place of occurrence. Yet, on his attention being drawn under cross -examination the witness insisted that it was not a fact that he had not stated before the police that he had seen the assailant running away but admitted having not seen the assailant assaulting his parents. P.W. 3 Mahavir Sao was the youngest son of the deceased who corroborated the statement of his elder brother informant and testified that he found the dead bodies of his parents lying in the courtyard at Village -Karamtoli in a pool of blood. He admitted seizure of a wristwatch and an identity card from the place of occurrence as also his signature or the seizure list prepared thereof by the police.;