- (1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 12.02.2002 and 13.02.2002 respectively, by the Additional Sessions judge, Gumla in Sessions Case no. 26/1999, convicting the appellant for committing the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for causing death of Bhokha Chik Baraik and Budhani Devi. The prosecution case in short, is that Lahru Chik Baraik the informant (P.W. 7) gave a fardbeyan on 22.10.98 at about 10.30 in the day that when he woke up at about 3 a.m. in the morning for attending call of nature, his wife P.W. 6 Bimla Devi told him that at about 9 p.m. on 21.10.98 the appellant has killed his uncle Bhokha Chik Baraik and aunty Budhani Devi. The informant went to the house of deceased, but they were not there. Then he found that the dead body of the two deceased were lying in the field with bleeding injuries. The informant informed the Sarpanch (P.W. 6), who asked the informant to contact; the Mukhiya, (P.W. 1). Both went to meet the Mukhiya and told him about, the occurrence. The informant was informed by his cousin sister Sonmati Kumari (P.W. 3) that at about 8 p.m. the appellant came to house with a Tangi and started abusing his aunt, to which she protested, but the appellant; dragged her and assaulted on her head. Her uncle tried to intervene, but the appellant killed him also by assaulting with Tangi. It; was alleged that about; two years back there was quarrel between P.W. 3-Sonmati Kumari and Saraswati Kumari- daughter of the appellant in which a Panchayati was held and the appellant was directed to give a she goat. From then the parties were not in talking terms. It; is, further, alleged that due to such enmity the appellant has killed the deceased persons.
(2.) Mr. Amitabh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that, it will not safe to uphold the conviction only on the evidence of a child witness-P.W. 3; and, that admittedly, there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, before the alleged occurrence, and therefore, the appellant can be convicted u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.;