- (1.) NOBODY appears on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Modi, panel advocate, is appointed as Amicus Curie to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant in this case. Later on : By Court. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2003 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 401/97, convicting the appellant for committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life.
(2.) THE prosecution case in short, is that Behra Purty (informant) - PW 2 lodged a fardbeyan on 24.07.1996 at 9.30 p.m. along with the Baijanth Kodang (PW 3) that at about 4 p.m., his mother Jobna Purty (deceased) aged about 45 years and his younger sister Jema Kui purty (PW 1), aged about 18 years were working in the field when the appellant came there hiding an Axe and told Jobna Purty that he wanted to talk to her. Then he went near her and after taking out the Axe hidden in his shirt inflicted injury on the neck of Jobna Purty due to which she fell on the edge of the field. Then the appellant again inflicted tangi blow and killed Jobna Purty. He threatened PW 1, with dire consequences upon which PW 1 rushed to the house and told the informant about the incident. The informant went at the field and found the dead body of Jobna Purty. Appellant had already fled away. The informant further stated that the appellant told before Munda of the village that Jobna Purty had practiced witchcraft on the leg of the appellant due to which there was swelling in the leg and therefore, he killed Jobna Purty. The occurrence was seen by one Mandu Purty also. On this fardbeyan, First Informant Report was registered. Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned A.C. for the appellant submitted that the conduct of appellant is relevant in as much as there is nothing to show that he tried to kill the eye -witness (PW 1) also and moreover, he was found in his house on the next day of the occurrence from where he was arrested. He further submitted that there was delay in lodging the First Information Report, therefore, there are chances of concoction. He pointed out that in the First Information Report, there is no whisper of any land dispute but, PWs 1 and 2 who are interested witnesses, have stated that there was land dispute also. It is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. He further submitted that as per First Information Report, one Mandu Purty also saw the occurrence but he has not been examined in this case which also creates doubt. He also submitted that the extrajudicial confession has got no evidentiary value on the basis of which, the alleged recovery of Axe was made. He submitted that Axe is a common weapon available in the village homes and moreover, PW 3 who is one of the seizure list witnesses, did not whisper about any seizure. Further the seized Axe was not sent for chemical examination. Lastly, he submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for about 15 years and he must be around 65 years of age by now.
(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.;