- (1.) THE appellant was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of his father, Mistar Hansda. 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 24.11.2003 and sentenced him vide its order dated 25.11.2003 to undergo imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecution as initially made out in the fardbeyan is that on 12.04.2002 while the informant Pansuri Hembram -P.W. 6 was there in her house at 3 -4 p.m. along with her husband Mistar Hansda (deceased), the appellant, step -son of the informant, came and after putting paddy in a bag started taking it away. The appellant was prevented both by the informant -P.W. 6 -Pansuri Hembram and her husband (deceased) from taking paddy. That led to altercation in between the appellant and the deceased during which the appellant made his father to fall on the ground and then kicked him. When the informant tried to save her husband she was also assaulted by the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant left home and his father Mistar Hansda remained lying on the ground. In the night, the informant informed to her relatives but on that day Mistar Hansda could not be removed to hospital. On the next day at about 12 o'clock there was severe pain in the stomach and then the deceased vomited blood and died.
(2.) ON the next day i.e. on 13.04.2002 Amar Nath Surin, officer in charge of Shikaripara police station, came to the place of occurrence, he recorded fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of the informant Pansuri Hansda -P.W. 6 at about 6 p.m. On the basis of said fardbeyan a formal FIR (Ext. 5) was drawn. The said Amar Nath Surin himself took up the investigation during which he held inquest on the dead body and prepared an inquest report (Ext. 6). Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Dewashish Rakshit -P.W. 8, who upon holding autopsy on the dead body did find following injuries: (i) Abrasion over right elbow 1/2" x 1/2". (ii) Abrasion over left elbow 1/2" x 1/2". (iii) Abrasions over right side of chest 3 in number each of the size 2" x 1/2". (iv) Abrasions over left side of chest 3 in number each of the size 2" x 1/2". (v) Lacerated wound over right temporomandibular region of the size 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep. On dissection fracture of bone of that region was found with blood clot. On further dissection cranial cavity was found filled with blood. Brain and meninges were found lacerated. (vi) Abrasion size 1" x 1/2" over belly. On dissection peritoneal cavity was found filled with blood, stomach was found torn and haematoma was found present over the small intestine surface. The doctor issued post -mortem examination report (Ext. 3) with an opinion that the death was caused due to injury Nos. (v) and (vi) caused by hard and blunt substance. At the same time, the I.O. got the informant -Pansuri Hansda -P.W. 6 examined by Dr. Om Prakash -P.W. 7, who upon examining her did find following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound over head 2 1/2" in length x 1/2" at right parietal region. (ii) Swelling over right wrist joint. (iii) Abrasion 3" x 1/2" x skin deep of right arm. Doctor issued injury report (Ext. 2) without giving any opinion regarding nature of injury. However, on receipt of X -Ray report, he issued again an injury report (Ext. 2/1) with an opinion that all the injuries were simple in nature.
(3.) MEANWHILE , the I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, when the charge -sheet was submitted against the appellant, the Court took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Session where the appellant was put on trial during which the prosecution examined altogether 9 witnesses. Of them, P.W. 1 -Shivdhar Hansda, P.W. 2 -Bale Hansda, P.W. 3 -Nunuku Lal Marandi, P.W. 4 -Churka Hansda, and P.W. 5 -Jarman Soren did depose that they came to know either from the informant -Pansuri Hansda -P.W. 6 or from the informant as well as the deceased that during altercation in between the deceased, appellant and the informant, the appellant assaulted his father as a result of which he died on the next day. P.W. 6 -informant Pansuri Hembram did testify that on the date of occurrence when the appellant was taking paddy from the house she forbade him from taking paddy on account of which altercation ensued in between the appellant and the deceased during which the appellant made his father to fall on the ground and then sat over the chest and assaulted him. On the next day the deceased died.;