- (1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 6th September, 1991, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 1990, whereby, the appellant, namely. Shrawan Mahto, has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.11.1989 at about 8.00 a.m. the informant Sanichar Mahto (P.W. 3) had gone in his field for harvesting the paddy crops and his daughter, though already married but was living in his father's house, as usual, had gone to Rahar field for cutting grass from the said field. On that day the informant (P.W. 3) returned from his field and learnt from his younger daughter, namely, Dewanti Kumari, that his elder daughter. Hemanti Devi (deceased), had come to take her meal at late hours and, therefore, the informant along with his son, Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Mahto (P.W. 2), proceeded to Serpurwa Baghouta Badhar, in order to ascertain the reason for her late coming for taking meal. While they were just hundred yards away from the field in Baghouta Badhar, they heard loud cry of Hemanti and apprehended that she is in great danger and, therefore, they rushed towards the field and saw the accused Shrawan Mahto and his son Bhadoiya Mahto dragging Hemanti, in order to conceal her. On the Hulla. raised by the informant, his brother Bechan Mahto (P.W. 1) also reached there and all of them saw accused Shrawan Mahto and his son running away. Hemanti was struggling there for his life, but, she could not speak anything and died immediately. The informant thereafter, informed the Chowkidar as well as the in-laws of the deceased, who arrived at the place of occurrence, and thereafter, leaving them at the place of occurrence, the informant (P.W. 3) went to the Police Station for lodging the First Information Report and, thereafter, the instant First Information Report being Chainpur Police Station Case No. 96 of 1989 dated 16.11.1989 was instituted.
(2.) After instituting the First Information Report, the police carried out investigation and submitted charge sheet. The case was committed to the court of Sessions where the case was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 88 of 1990 and on the basis of the evidence and depositions, given by the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 to P.W. 8, the learned trial court has passed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence against the appellant, namely, Shrawan Mahto, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Hemanti Devi and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, at length, who has mainly submitted that the First Information Report has been lodged by P.W. 3, Sanichar Mahto, who is father of the deceased Hemanti Devi. Several injuries were 'sustained by the deceased, as per the case of the prosecution and as per the medical evidence, given by P.W. 5, who is Dr. Sita Ram Choudhary, but, in the First Information Report, father of the deceased has neither mentioned about any weapon in the hand of the appellant-accused, nor has narrated the manner of assault nor the motive for committing murder of the deceased-girl. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that such an important aspect of the matter cannot be forgotten by the informant, when he was lodging the First Information Report. Secondly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence appears to have been committed during the day hours. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is evidence of the prosecution witnesses that in an open field the offence was committed and in the nearby fields there were several persons working, but, not a single independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. Thirdly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a sharp contradiction between the medical evidence and ocular evidence and lastly, it is submitted that there is too much exaggerated version in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and, as such, it is difficult to separate the grain and chaff and therefore, the so called eye witnesses are not trustworthy and are unreliable, because they have never seen the incident at all. These aspect of the matters have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence the impugned judgment and order conviction and sentence, passed by the learned trial court, deserve to be quashed and set aside.;