- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur, in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the appellants having been found guilty for committing murder of Sanatan Marandi were convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of rupees five thousand with a default clause.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 20.6.2001 Sanatan Marandi (deceased), the husband of Ful Tudu (PW 3) had gone to plough the field along with his labourer Gard Tudu (PW 1). While they were ploughing the field, all these four appellants variously armed came over there. Baburam Soren was having an arrow with him, Rajmashi was having a sickle with him whereas others were having lathi with them. As soon as they came at the field which was being ploughed by the deceased and Gard Tudu (PW 1), Baburam Soren shot an arrow hitting over the arm as well the back of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down in the field lying adjacent to the field which was being ploughed by the deceased. When the deceased fell down, Rajmanshi inflicted injuries over the face and head of the deceased while the other appellant Hopna Soren and Baran Tudu (not sent up for trial) assaulted the deceased with lathi. On seeing this, Gard Tudu ran back to the house of the informant and informed the informant (the wife of the deceased) Ful Tudu (PW 3) who came rushing to the place of occurrence and found the appellants assaulting the deceased. The deceased died on account of receiving injuries. Meanwhile, PW 1 Ajay Kumar Tiwari who, at the relevant time, was posted as officer in charge of Litipara P.S. received an information that someone has been killed in village Binjha. He proceeded for the place of occurrence. On reaching there, he recorded fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of the informant (PW 3) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ext. 2) was drawn. The investigating officer held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext. 4). Thereupon, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Lalit Kumar Bhagat (PW 9). On holding autopsy, the doctor did find the following injuries: (I) one incised wound on mid parietal region 2"x 1" x 1"; (II) arrow piercing at left forearm; (III) one incised wound on right ear 4" x 1"; (IV) one lacerated wound on right fore -arm at lower part near right wrist joint causing damage of skin, muscles, arteries, veins and tendons; (V) one incised wound at left shoulder joint leading to fracture of shoulder bone; (VI) arrow on left side of middle back. The doctor issued post mortem examination report ( Ext. 5) with an opinion that the death of the deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the injuries found on vital organs which were caused by sharp cutting weapon and hard blunt substance.
(3.) AFTER completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offence was taken and when the case was committed to the court of sessions, the appellants were put on trial during which the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Of them PWs. 3, 4, 8 and 10 have been declared hostile, whereas PW 2 Ramesh Murmu is a witness to the inquest. PW 6 Shibu Turi is a hearsay witness. PW 5 Chhabilal Marandi is a witness who had seen the injuries on the person of the deceased. PW 1 Gard Tudu is the only eye -witness who supported the case of the prosecution as has been made out in the fardbeyan. The trial court having found the testimony of Gard Tudu (PW 1) trustworthy getting corroboration from the medical evidence, recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is under challenge.;