- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.2.2001 and 23.2.2001 passed in Sessions Trial No.659/193 of 1994, whereby and whereunder the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur held the appellant guilty under Section 304 (Part II) IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 years.
(2.) The brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 1.7.1994 the deceased Ralsen Soren, broher of the Informant Pan! Mardi, had gone to the house of his sister at village Shankarpur, P.S. Parsudih, District East Singhbhum. It is further stated that when the deceased went to ease himself in the night at about 9 PM, the appellant has assaulted him because he did not inform the appellant regarding the part taken by the Pradhan Baski. It is further stated that the appellant has assaulted the deceased with Danda on his mouth, chest and backside. This was narrated by the deceased to the informant, when he returned back. According to the informant, she thereafter took the deceased for treatment in the hospital, where he breathed his last on 17.7.1994. The informant was examined by the police after preparation of inquest, on the basis of which Parsudih P.S. Case No. 91/94 under Section 304 IPC was registered. The police investigated the case and arrested the appellant and thereafter submitted charge sheet against the appellant showing Pradhan Baski absconder under Section 304/34 IPC. The case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. The trial court after examining the witnesses held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304 (Part II) IPC and sentenced him to serve RI for three years.
(3.) The present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the appellant was convicted on mere surmises and conjecture. It is further asserted that the learned lower court has relied upon the hearsay witness, who has not seen the occurrence. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged after 16 days of the alleged occurrence and all other witnesses, except the informant, have turned hostile. According to the learned Counsel, reliance placed upon the interested witnesses, where the delay has not been explained and it was not proper for the trial court to convict the appellant. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the post mortem report suggests otherwise the cause of death. It is further asserted that even if the prosecution story is accepted, the appellant having served the sentence during trial for nearly four months, deserves to be acquitted, as he has no knowledge that the deceased was having Tuberculosis at the time of occurrence.;