- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgement of conviction dated 09.05.2001 and order of sentence dated 10.05.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 233 of 1998 convicting the appellant under sections 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life.
(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that the informant-Surya Mani Devi (PW-1) lodged fardbeyan at 10.30 hours on 9.6.1998 to the effect that at about 2.3 PM she along with her son (PW-4) and 'Gotni'- was sitting outside her house and her husband-Jitu Baraik (deceased) was sleeping under the tree. THE appellant who happens to be the nephew of the deceased, silently came with the tangi and suddenly hit the deceased on his head, due to which blood started oozing out. THE informant party started raising hulla on which the appellant threatened them and fled away with tangi. THE informant along with the villagers went to the place of occurrence and found her husband lying dead due to bleeding injury. It was alleged that the appellant used to assault his mother and sister under the state of intoxication which was protested by the deceased and on such protest, there used to be hot exchange of words between the appellant and the deceased. Two days prior to the alleged occurrence, there was altercation between the deceased and the appellant and the appellant had threatened the deceased with dire consequences. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted PW-1 is not the eyewitness of this case and it appears from the evidence of PW-3 that some other person had assaulted the 2 deceased. He further submitted that PW-2 who is the neighbour, has not supported the case of the informant that there used to be quarrel between the appellant and his mother and sister which was protested by the deceased. He further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.
(3.) PROSECUTION examined seven witnesses. PW-1 is the informant. She fully supported the prosecution case. She saw the occurrence from the distance of about 50 ft. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that this witness could not see the occurrence from such distance. This witness also said that on hulla, villagers could not come as the place of occurrence was at some distance from the village. Only because this witness said that she along with the villagers went to the place of occurrence and found her husband dead, it cannot be accepted that she is not the eyewitness. Pw-2 is the neighbour who saw the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence with tangi. This witness said that he did not see quarrel between the appellant and his family members and he learnt about such quarrel from Pw-1.;