- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 6th August, 2003, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in S.T. Case No. 304 of 1998. This appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Case of the Prosecution: Case of the prosecution is that P.W. 5, who is father of the deceased informed Kuchai Police Station, District-Seraikela-Kharswan on 12th April, 1998 that this appellant accused has committed murder of his son Moika Soy (deceased) on the same day, i.e. on 12th April, 1998 at about 15.30 hours and that he (P.W. 5) got information of this offence from P.W. 11. On the basis of this Fardbayan, First Information Report was lodged. Investigation was carried out, statement of various witnesses have been recorded, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was numbered as S.T. Case No. 304 of 1998. The murder took place at the house of the P.W. 4 (Kartik Gope) and on the basis of the deposition of P.W. 1 to 14, this appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Argument of the counsel for the appellant:
(2.) No actual eye witness to the incident: It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that there is no eye witness to the incident in question. The so-called eye witnesses, i.e. P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6, have never told before the learned trial court that they have seen the accused committing murder of the deceased. On the contrary, P.W. 4 stated in his examination-in-chief that this accused came to the place of offence, i.e. house of the so-called eye witness P.W. 4, after the incident was over. It is also submitted by counsel for the appellant that P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 stated that they went to the place of occurrence immediately but by that time the incident was over. Depositions of this witnesses are absolutely vague and therefore, they are not the eye-witnesses to the incident. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that out of total 14 witnesses only P.W. 4 was present there as an eyewitness, but he also had not deposed that he saw the accused committing murder of the victim. On the contrary, P.W. 4 deposed that this appellant came to his house after the incident. Therefore, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence.
(3.) Inconsistency in the deposition of the witnesses: The stand taken by eye-witness P.W. 4 is inconsistent with the deposition of P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 because as per this so-called eye-witness (P.W. 4) this accused came later on, i.e. after the incident, whereas P.W. 6 have deposed that this accused was present at the place of occurrence after the incident.;