S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J. - (1.) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant Sukhdeo Lohra against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28th August, 1999 and 31st August, 1999 respectively, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial Nos. 402 of 1996/44 of 1996, arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 41 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
(2.) THE prosecution case, which is based on the fardbayan (Ext. 3) of one Baijnath Lohra (PW 8), brother of deceased Mangal Lohra, lodged on 29th March, 1996 at 11.30 am, is that on that very day in the morning hours, while he (Baijnath Lohra) was in his house, PW 3 Bhawra Mahto came and informed that his brother Mangal Lohra had been killed, so proceed with water. Thereafter, he left his house along with water for the house of Mangal Lohra, but having not found him there, he accompanied Sugain Devi, wife of Mangal Lohra, and proceeded towards the field, where in the field of Jageshwar Lohra, father of accused Sukhdeo Lohra, he found the deed body of Mangal Lohra, having bleeding injuries on his neck and temporal region, from where blood was oozing out. PW 3 Bhowra Mahto told them that accused Sukhdeo Lohra and his father Jageshwar Lohra had assaulted Mangal with spade, resulting his death and the spade was lying in the field. It was further reported that there was a land dispute, going on in between Jageshwar (father of accused) and Mangal (deceased) since long. On the fateful day, accused Sukhdeo Lohra was ploughing field when Mangal went there and made protest, on which Jageshwar and Sukhdeo abused Mangal and caused his death by means of spade, after chasing him. PW 1 Indradip Tigga and PW 2 Krishna Tigga are said to have witnesses the aforesaid occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbayan, a formal First Information Report was drawn up against the appellant and his father Jageshwar Lohra. However, after investigation while charge -sheet was submitted against the appellant Sukhdeo Lohra, his father Jageshwar Lohra was not sent up for trial. Thereafter, charge was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he denied and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, levelled against the appellant, the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses, out of whom PW 1 Indradip Tigga, PW 2 Krishna Tigga and PW 3 Bhowra Mahto are independent eye -witnesses. PW 4 Dr. Kameshwar Thakur, Medical Officer, has conducted autopsy on the person of the deceased. PW 5 Meghnath Bhagat is a seizure list witness whereas PW 6 Gandharv Nath Sahdeo, mukhiya of the panchayat, PW 7 Sugain Devi and the informant PW 8 Baijnath Lohra (brother of the deceased) are the hearsay witnesses, who came to know about the alleged occurrence from the eye -witnesses.
(3.) THE learned Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence, came to a definite conclusion that accused Sukhdeo Lohra assaulted Mangal Lohra with stone and spade, due to which Mangal Lohra died then and there.;