HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20th February, 1998 and order of sentence dated 23rd February, 1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 285 of 1997/223 of 1997 whereby and where under the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra held the appellant guilty under Sections 307, 452 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years under Section 307, IPC but no separate sentence was passed under Sections 324 and 452, IPC.
(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that Sugia Devi, the informant, gave a fardbeyan on 9.9.1996 at about 10.30 a.m. at State hospital of Tandwa before A.S.I. Dewaki Tanti of Tandwa PS in injured condition to the effect that on 8.9.1996 at about 9.00 p.m. in the night, she was sleeping on mat after taking meal and her son Raj Kumar Uraon had gone to watch Karma play. She was alone in the house. At about 11.00 p.m. in the night, one unknown boy of the age of her son and appeared to be of her caste entered her house and in her sleeping condition without uttering anything gave several blows of knife on her neck, she started weeping and bite his finger of the hand with her teeth, then he left her and fled away. She got injured and on her hulla, neighbours assembled. Cause of occurrence is that her devar Raghu Uraon always quarrels with her over property issue and he always wants share in the crops which she has grown in her field and always threatens to get her murdered. On this piece of fardbeyan, a case bearing Tandwa PS Case No. 56 of 1996 under Sections 307/34, 452 and 324 IPC was registered and I.O. after investigation submitted charge - sheet. Cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges under aforesaid sections were framed and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra after recording evidence of witnesses both oral and documentary came to a finding and held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Prosecution has examined altogether seven witness PW 1 is Jagdeo Uraori. He is father -in -law of the informant. PW2 is Bhuneshwar Uraon. He is Brother -in -law of Sugia Devi. PW3 is Sugia Devi herself who is the informant as well as Injured PW4 is Raj Kumar, who is son of Sugia Devi PW5 is Dr. K.K. Lall. who has examined Sugia Devi PW6 and PW7 are formal witness.
(3.) PW 1 has deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence, he was sleeping after taking meal. At about 11.00 p.m. he heard cries of his daughter -in -law, Sugia Devi and went to her house and saw that appellant was fleeing away from the house of Sugin Devi (PW3). He went inside the house and saw injuries on the neck of Sugia Devi. She informed him that she has bitten the finger of appellant. He caught appellant and sent Sugia Devi along with Raj Kumar to Hazaribagh for treatment. He admits that there was complete darkness and houses are far away from the place of occurrence but his house is adjacent to the house of Sugia. He further admits that in the evening, he cannot see nor he can identify anyone. He also admits that he has not made such statement before the I.O when he reached at the PO where he learnt from Sugia Devi and neighbours that one unknown person gave chura blows on Sugia Devi and fled away.;