- (1.) By Court : This appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.4.2003 and 30.4.2003 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC 1, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Further, the appellant has also been directed to pay fine of rupees four thousand and in default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(2.) PROSECUTION case, in short, is that the informant -(PW1) Ludari Tiri lodged fard beyan with the Police on 23.5.2002 at about 8.15 p.m. in the hospital that the appellant, the neighbour of the informant, was ill for about a month and he suspected that her husband Suren Tiria practised witch -craft as a result of which he had fallen ill. For this reason, there was quarrel between them and on that day (23.5.2002), he was discharged from the hospital at about 2.00 p.m. While her husband was sleeping on the veranda of his house, she was in the room. On hearing some noise, she came out and saw the appellant coming with an axe in his hand towards the veranda where his husband was sleeping. Suddenly, the appellant gave a tangi blow on the head of her husband causing bleeding injuries. When he tried to get up, the appellant again inflicted injury. She raised alarms. The neighbours assembled. The appellant fled away with the blood stained tangi. Her husband, who was unconscious, was taken for treatment to Kiriburi Hospital where he died on the next day (24.5.2002). On the basis of the said fard beyan of the informant Ludri Tiria (PW1), Kiriburu PS Case No. 13 of 2001 was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant who faced the trial and was convicted as aforesaid.
(3.) MR . Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds and submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. PW1 is the solitary eye witness projected by the prosecution, but she cannot be believed as the eye witness in view of material discrepancies in her fard beyan, statements made before the police and the statement made before the court. There was only one injury on the head of the deceased. He further submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for about 11 years and deserves benefit of doubt.;