- (1.) THE appellant was put on trial on the charge of committing murder of his uncle Gumman Sardar. The Court having found the appellant guilty convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated 29.6.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2001 and sentenced him vide its order dated 30.6.2005 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The case of the prosecution, is that, on 17.3.2000 at about 7.00 p.m. while the informant -Suhagini Sardar (P.W. -3), the widow of the deceased -Gumman Sardar was inside the house, she heard some noise coming from outside the house. Upon which, she came out and saw the appellant assaulting her husband -Gumman Sardar with Tangi, as a result of which the deceased having sustained injury fell unconscious. On the next day i.e. on 18.3.2000 at about 6.00 a.m. when R.J. Bhagat -S.l. of Dumaria Police Station came to the house of the informant, he recorded fardbeyan of the informant -Suhagini Sardar, wherein she narrated the same story that Rajballabh Sardar had assaulted her husband. Further, she made statement that on the day of occurrence Haldhar Sardar, the father of this appellant when asked the appellant to do some work the appellant became enraged. He in order to kill his father chased him by having a tangi with him. In that course, Haldhar Sardar came running to her house where her husband Gumman Sardar (deceased) tried to rescue his brother -Haldhar Sardar on account of that the appellant assaulted her husband, Gumman Sardar, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries. On such fardbeyan, case was registered under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. But, "when the deceased died, the case was also registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE I.O. having taken over the investigation of the case did hold inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Exbt -2). Thereupon, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by doctor Om Shankar -P.W. 10. On holding autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, the doctor did find following injuries: - - (i) Sharp cut wound of size 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep. The shape of the wound was of type '7' and this wound was on left forehead between left eyebrow and hair. (ii) Sharp cut wound of size 8 c.m. x 2 c.m. x oesophagus deep on the left side of the neck from the left angle of jaw to right chin. (iii) Sharp cut wound 1.5 c.m. x 0.8 c.m. x bone deep on left chin near lip. The doctor issued post mortem report (Exbt. -3) with an opinion that the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock on account of the aforesaid injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon. Meanwhile, the I.O. recorded the statement of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, when the charge sheet was submitted, the Court took cognizance of the offence and when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial, during which, the prosecution in order to prove the charge examined 10 witnesses. Of them, P.W. 1 -Haldhar Sardar, the father of the appellant is the eye witness who has testified that when he asked his son to do work he became quite enraged and then he out of anger picked up a Tangi and chased to kill him. He ran away from there and came to the house of his younger brother -Gumman Sardar (deceased) who tried to intervene in the matter, during which, the appellant assaulted him with Tangi causing injury resulting into his death. Rest of the witnesses, P.W. 2 -Bhola Sardar (uncle of the appellant), P.W. 3 -Suhagini Sardar (informant), P.W. 4 -Mizari Sardar, P.W. 5 -Duja Sardar, P.W. 6 -Niva Ram Sardar, P.W. 7 -Kisun Deogam, P.W. 8 -Puran Sardar are the hearsay witnesses, who derived their knowledge either from Haldhar Sardar -P.W. 1 or from other persons. Even the informant, who as per the fardbeyan appears to be the eye witness turns out to be a hearsay witness.
(3.) THUS , the whole case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimony of P.W. 1, who in his evidence, as stated above, has testified that it was the appellant who inflicted injuries on his younger brother -Gumman Sardar (deceased) by Tangi. He has also testified about the circumstances under which the appellant did give Tangi blows upon the deceased. The deceased having received injuries, as has been found by the doctor, died on account of the shock and haemorrhage and thereby, the prosecution has been able to establish that appellant did assault the deceased by Tangi as a result of which the deceased died.;