R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.2.1995 and order of sentence dated 18.2.1995 passed by Learned lst Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in connection with Sessions Trial No. 139 of 93 convicting the appellants under section 302 /34 of the I.P.C and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life. The prosecution case in short is that Khudi Sao, informant(P.W.4) gave fardbeyan on 15.5.1992 at about 9.00 a.m. to the effect that on 13.5.1992 his brother Budhu Sahu went to market but did not return in the evening. In the morning on search the informant learnt from one Saban Singh that Budhu Sahu came with one Gokul Singh on bicycle. Gokul Singh proceeded towards his home by the bicycle. Budhu Sahu got down and after talking for sometime went away. The informant searched him. It is alleged that about 10 days back there was some dispute between Budhu Sahu on the one hand and Ajit Soren and Silverster Soren on the other hand with regard to one axe and they threatened Budhu Sahu of dire consequences, and therefore, the informant suspected that they might have killed Budhu Sahu and might have concealed his dead body. The dead body of Budhu Sahu was recovered on the confession of Ajit Soren and Silvester Soren, who confessed their guilt on 15.5.1992. Thereafter, as per the prosecution case, all the present appellants namely Silbestar Dungdung, Ghuran Lohra, George Soreng also confessed their guilt before the police on 20.5.1992. The Doctor has found about 6 punctured wounds on the deceased, Budhu Sao caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon. As per the Doctor injury No. 3 was responsible for death in ordinary course of nature.
(2.) MR . A.K.Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the trial of Ajit Soren and Silvester Soren was separated on the ground that they claimed to be juvenile. He further submitted that the main allegations were against them. However, he is not in a position to inform this court as to what happened in their case. But he submitted that so far as these appellants are concerned, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against them beyond all reasonable doubts. He took us to the materials on the record. He also submitted that the appellants were taken into custody in May, 1992 i.e. about 19 years back. They were not granted bail in this case. It is not known whether they have been released from jail or not. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.
(3.) THE prosecution has projected P.W.8 and 9 as the eye witnesses. P.W.9, Basudeo Singh did not name these appellants, rather he specifically named Ajit Soren and Silvester Soren. He denied to have stated before the police that the appellants along with Ajit Soren and Silvester Soren assaulted Budhu Sahu. This P.W.9 gave his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. in which he generally said that - there was quarrel in the Aangan of one Marshal where he saw that Ajit Soren and Silvester Soren were assaulting Budhu Sahu; then he specifically said that Ajit Soren was assaulting Budhu Sahu with cycle chain on which Budhu Sahu tried to escape; all the accused persons surrounded him and started beating; again Budhu Sahu escaped but the accused persons caught him and killed him by assaulting with lathi, chura etc, the accused persons threatened this witness and, therefore, he did not disclose about the incident to anybody. Thus, there appears to be vital contradictions in the evidences of P.W.9 and his statement made under Section 164 Cr. P.C., so far as these appellants are concerned. P.W. 8, Alexender Bilung, specifically stated that Ajit Soren and Silvester Soren quarreled with Budhu Sahu after they alongwith appellant No. 3 George Soren followed the deceased. Thereafter, Ajit Soren started assaulting Budhu Sahu by cycle chain on which he tried to escape. The wife of appellant No. 3 exhorted the accused persons to kill Budhu Sahu, on which Ajit Soren and Silvester Soren along with the appellants chased Budhu Sahu. Budhu Sahu fell down. Then Ajit Soren & Silvester Dundung with cycle chain, and Silvester Soren with dagger assaulted Budhu Sahu. Appellant No. 2, Ghuran Lohra and appellant No. 3, George Soreng also assaulted the deceased with fists and legs. Budhu Sahu died at the spot. He further stated that due to threat and fear he did not disclose about the incident to anybody. This witness also gave statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C., wherein he generally stated that Ajit and Silvester Soren along with the appellants killed Budhu Sahu; the accused person took the deceased in the Aangan of Marshal where there was quarrel between them; two persons tried to pacify the matter but Ajit Soren assaulted the deceased by cycle chain; the deceased tried to escape; wife of appellant, George Soren exhorted to kill him; then all the accused persons killed Budhu Sahu. Thus, there appears to be vital contradictions in the statement of this witness made under Section 164 Cr. P. C. and before the Court. P. W. 10, who is the Investigating Officer, specifically stated in Para -14 that P.W. 8 did not say the said story before him.;