- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 24.03.2004 passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the court having found the appellants guilty for committing murder of Rangia Doraiburu convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that in the night of 22.12.2002 the informant Raghunath Doraiburu (P.W.1) while was sleeping in his house along with his wife Chundri Doraiburu (P.W.2) and children, woke up after hearing noise coming from the courtyard and came to courtyard, where he saw these two appellants assaulting Rangia Doraiburu, who after being assaulted was pushed inside a room where both of them also threw the Bhujali and knife. After some time, when the accused persons fled away, he came to that room and found the Rangia Doraiburu dead. On the next morning i.e. 23.12.2002 at about 7.00 a.m., both the appellants again came and asked as to whether Rangia Doraiburu has died or is still alive. They entered into the room and when found Rangia Doraiburu dead, they went away. On 23.12.2002 Bharat Dasabya, Dakua of village, informed the Officer -in -Charge of Tonto police station at about 10.30 a.m. about killing of Rangia Doraiburu upon which he made Sanha entry and then proceeded for village Barakuchia where at about 11.30 a.m. recorded the fardbeyan of Raghunath Doraiburu P.W.1. On the basis of which a formal F.I.R. (Ext.7) was drawn thereupon he himself took up the investigation of the case during which he held inquest on the dead body of Raghunath Doraiburu and prepared an inquest report. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh (P.W.7). On holding autopsy on the dead body, he found following injuries: - External Injury: - (i) Incised wound five in numbers on scalp 2" X 3/4" X bone deep. (ii) Wound over left scapula 2" X 3" X bone deep. (iii) Abrasion black colour over back 8" X 3". On dissection skull bone was found fractured. Brain tissues were lacerated and spleen was found divided in two halves and were lacerated. Further, 8th, 9th and 10th ribs were found fractured. The doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext.3) with an opinion that death was caused on account of aforesaid injuries caused by sharp cutting instruments like Bhujali and knife.
(3.) MEANWHILE , the I.O. (P.W.8) also seized knife and Bhujali under seizure list (Ext.6) from the room where the dead body was lying. At the same time, the I.O. also seized earth smeared with blood. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet upon which cognizance of the offence was taken. When the case was committed to the court of Sessions, the appellants were put on trial during which prosecution examined eight witnesses. Of them, P.W.3 - Bharat Dasbeya, P.W.4 Sulubh Doraiburu are the witnesses to the seizure. P.W.3 and also P.W.5 are the witnesses to the inquest. P.W.6 is a heresay witness who derived knowledge about the occurrence from P.W.1. P.W.1 Raghunath Doraiburu is the informant, who testified in the same manner as he had made statement in his fardbeyan. P.W.2 the wife of P.W.1 also testified that it were the appellants who killed the deceased. After closure of the prosecution case, when the incriminating material appearing against the appellants was put to them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants denied it. Thereupon, the court having placed its reliance on the testimony of P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 getting corroboration from the medical evidence did record the order of conviction and sentence against the appellants, which is under challenge. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the informant happens to be the uncle who has falsely implicated these two appellants to grab the property of the appellant by concocting a case that the appellant brought the deceased by assaulting to the house of P.W.1 which story appears to be improbable as nobody would be taking the deceased to the house of his own relative to make him a witness. Further, it was submitted that if the appellants were to kill the deceased, he would have killed him and threw the dead body anywhere in the village in the night. In the circumstances, the case as made out by P.W.1 certainly appears to be a concocted case but the trial court did not consider all these aspects of the matter and recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is fit to be set aside.;