Amareshwar Sahay, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 11.12.1996, passed by the Session Judge, Godda, in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 1995 whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 oi the Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo RI for life under Section 302/34, IPC whereas RI for 5 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, both the sentences were directed to run consecutively.
(2.) A fardbeyan of Sumi Murmu (PW 3) was recorded on 13.5.1995 at 11.30 hours wherein she stated that in the night of last Friday, she along with her children was lying in her courtyard and by her side, her sister-in-law (nanad) Paku Soren (PW 9) was also lying down. Her mother-in-law Durgi Marandi (not examined, was also lying down there in the courtyard. Her husband Munshi Soren (PW 1) was sleeping in the khalihan, which was situated in the north of her house. At about 10.00 p.m. Chandrai Murmu and Ajay Yadav, both the appellants came there and asked from her about her husband Munshi Soren to which she replied that she did not know. Thereafter Chandrai appellant No. 1 told to appellant No. 2 that burha (old man) was sleeping near Guava tree and, therefore, he be shot, dead and, thereafter both of them went near the Guava tree. In the moonlit night the informant saw that Chandrai Murnu was catching hold of the neck of her father-in-law and Ajay Yadav shot a fire on his neck from his fire arm. After that both of them fled away. The informants husband chased both the appellants but they could not be caught. When she went near the father-in-law she found that he was already dead. Near the cot used cartridge was found lying. The reason for the occurrence was that the informants father-in-law used to participate in the panchayati, which was not liked by Chandrai Murmu and, therefore, Chandrai Murmu with the help of Ajay Yadav killed her father-in-law and she saw the occurrence in the moonlit night and identified them clearly. On the basis of this fardbeyan the FIR was registered under Sections 302/34, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against both the accused appellants. The police after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet and, thereafter, both the appellants were put on trial.
(3.) In order to establish the charges, altogether 10 prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 3 i.e. the informant, her husband Munshi Soren (PW 1) and her sister-in-law (nanad) Paku Soren (PW 9) are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, PW 4 Ajay Kumar Jha is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Tika Soren and PW 10 is the Investigating Officer. PW 5 Pradhan Soren was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case.;