- (1.) BY Court: In this Jail Appeal, neither on 15.03.2012 nor today anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant to press the appeal. In the circumstances, Mr. Krishna Shankar, a panel lawyer, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court on behalf of the appellant. Later on: This jail appeal has been filed against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.09.2002 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 1992, convicting the appellant under sections 302/34 and 394 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under section 302/34 IPC and R.I. for seven years for the offence under section 394 IPC. However, both the sentenced were to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that Shankar Singh Munda -Informant (PW -2) lodged a fardbeyan on 01.07.1991 at about 11.00 AM before the police that in the previous night at about 8.00 PM, his son Harish Munda (PW -5) came in injured condition and asked him to close the door. In the meantime, two miscreants entered into his house. In the flash of torchlight, the informant identified the appellant as one of them armed with farsa in his hand. Another accused was having a gun in his hand. On demand, the informant gave them some articles and money. They demanded some more amount. The informant silently escaped to the house of one Baldeo and told him about the occurrence. After sometimes when the informant returned to his house, he found that the miscreants had fled away. He found his wife lying dead in the injured condition. His daughter -in -law -Gurubari Mundain (PW -6) told him that the miscreants asked for wine and when she said that it was not available, she was assaulted by the miscreants by lathi. The accused persons took away some ornaments kept concealed in the house. Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. He also said that there are vital contradictions in the evidences.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Sardhu Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment.;