LAKSHMAN URAON, J. - (1.) THE appellants in both the appeals being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence dated 16.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 1992 convicting and sentencing them imprisonment for life under Section 302/34, IPC and further to go RI for three years each of the offence punishable under Section 201/34, IPC and further to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ - each and in default of payment of fine, to go further RI for three months, have preferred these appeals challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to these criminal appeals is that informant Sagar Munda (PW 9) in writing on 22.12.1991 informed the O/C, Chandial PS that his younger son Tete Munda was residing at Ranga Matia, PS - Chandil. On Thursday, Sukhram Munda, son of Bishun Munda (PW 3) and Siwan Munda (PW 4) of village Ranga Matia informed him that his younger son Tete Munda was murdered by Mangal Munda, Sukhram Munda (son of late Jarga Munda) and Boka Pahariya while he was returning on Tuesday with them from Gaur Bajar and reached near Kala Pathar village which is the village of the appellants at about 6.00 p.m. appellant Boka Pahariya, who is servant of accused Sukhram Munda (since absconding) took Tete Munda in the house of Sukhram Munda; saying that both Sukhram and Mangal Munda were calling him. Tete Munda went to the house of Sukhram Munda. After sometimes, they heard the voice. of Tete Munda calling them. When they went, they, saw Tete Munda lying dead.in the house of Sukhram Munda. Both these PW 3 Sukhram Munda and PW 4 Shiwan Munda out of fear fled away and informed the informant. Informant along with both these witnesses and the villagers went to village Kala Pathar. They did not find accused Sukhram Munda, Mangal Munda and Boka Pahariya. Etwa Munda (PW 6), Budhu Munda (PW 5) and Mangal Ram Munda (PW 7) of village Kala Pathar informed that they had seen the dead body of Tete Munda in the house of accused Sukhram Munda (since absconding). Informant also came to know that due to land dispute in between Mangal Munda (appellant) with the deceased, deceased Tete Munda was murdered. Informant came to know that the dead -body of Tete Munda was thrown in a drain in Makardah hill. Informant along with villagers went in search of the dead body and found the dead body of Tete Munda concealed in a drain at Makardah hill. Informant went to the Chandil PS and informed the police in writing. On that basis, Chandil PS Case No. 133 of 1991 dated 22.12.1991 under Sections 302/201/34, IPC was registered. After investigation, the IO submitted charge -sheet against both these appellants under Sections 302/201/34, IPC showing accused Sukhram Munda, son of Jarga Munda, of Kala Pathar as absconder. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses in order to bring home the charges leveled against both the appellants. PW 1, Ashwani Kumar Mahto on 22.12.2001 went to Makardah hill along with O/C, Chandil PS where the O/C seized the dead body of Tete Munda from a drain and prepared inquest report on which he signed (Ext. 1). PW 2 Mohim Singh Munda is a hearsay witness who was informed by Mangra Munda, Etwa Munda and Budhua Munda that Tete Munda was murdered by Mohan (Mangal) Munda, Boka Pahariya and Sukhram Munda and concealed the dead body in the Makardah hill. He also signed Ext. 1/1 on the inquest report prepared by O/C, Chandil PS. PW 3 Sukhram Munda, son of Bishun Munda and PW 4 Shivan Munda, are the eye -witnesses who were returning from Gaur Bajar along with Tete Munda. PW 5 Budhu Munda, PW 6 Etwa Munda and PW 7 Manga Ram Munda are the villagers of Kala Pathar who informed the informant that both the appellants and absconding accused Sukhram Munda murdered Tete Munda in the house of Sukhram Munda of village Kala Pathar and threw the dead body in a drain at Makardah hill. PW 8 Dr. Tulsi Mahto conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Tete Munda on 23.12.1992, and prepared post mortem report in his pen and signature Ext. 2. PW 9 is the informant and father of the deceased who is a hearsay witness. In this case, the written information of Sagar Munda (PW 9) was not proved. So also the 10 of this case has not been examined.
(3.) THE defence has not examined any witness, but the plea taken by them is that the appellants are innocent and due to land dispute, they have falsely been implicated in this case.;