- (1.) : Champai Hansda was tried and convicted under section 302 I.P.C. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is as follows: Talamai Kisku, wife of the deceased Bokwa Hansda, was preparing food in her house on 19.5.1980. At that time, one Dharmu Tatwa went there and wanted milk. P.W. 3 Talamai Kisku informed Dharmu Tatwa that she had no milk in the house. Dharmu Tatwa, leaving his shoes in front of the house of P.W. 3 went to the village for getting milk. When he returned to the house of P.W. 3, he found his shoes missing, Munshi Hansda, a child, was there and Dharmu Tatwa asked the child whether he knew as to the whereabouts of his shoes. Munshi Hansda replied saying that he has not seen the shoes. In the meantime, the deceased Bokwa Hansda accompanied by his wife, P.W. 3. questioned Dharmu Tatwa as to what the matter is. They were informed about the missing of his shoes. At that time, the appellant went there and inquired. He was also informed about the missing of the shoes. The appellant took Dharmu Tatwa to task by telling him as to how he could blame a child for the missing of his shoes. Thereafter, an altercation ensued between the appellant and the deceased, during which the appellant fisted and kicked the deceased and the deceased fell down and later died. A complaint was registered at the police station, which was not marked and the Investigating Officer was also not examined. After the inquest, the body was sent to the hospital for post mortem. Neither the Doctor, who conducted autopsy, was examined, nor the post mortem certificate was marked by the prosecution. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed against the appellant. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances, when he was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution, not having marked the earliest statement alleged to have been given by P.W. 3 Talamai Kisku and not having examined the Investigating Officer as well as the Doctor and also by not marking the post mortem certificate, failed to establish that the deceased died on account of the alleged injuries said to have been caused by the appellant. We have heard Mrs. C. Prabha, learned counsel appearing for the State.
(3.) WE find every force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The prosecution before the trial court, for the reasons best known to it, did not examine the Investigating Officer, did not mark the fardbeyan, did not examine the post mortem Doctor and did not mark the post mortem certificate. In the absence of any evidence and on the basis of oral evidence alone, which only shows that the appellant fisted and kicked the deceased, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the appellant committed the murder for him to be convicted under section 302 I.P.C.;