D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order or sentence dated 16.11.2000 and 18.11.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 512 of 1993/26 of 1994, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga held the appellant guilty under Sections 304(II), IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to this appeal are that one Mansa Oraon gave fardbeyan on 17.12.1992 at 18.15 hours to Lohardaga police that he was sleeping in his Sasural in the house of Dayanand Bhagat at village Hirhi, P.S. and district Lohardaga in the night of 15.12.1993 when all of sudden the appellant Somra Oraon along with one Gandra Oraon came inside and started assaulting him with lathi and spade resulting in several injuries on his body including a bleeding injury on the left leg. Thereafter he ran away to save his life and concealed himself in stack of straw at Tangratoli, wherefrom he was retrieved by the police. According to Mansa, the appellant had objections why he used to go to his Sasural On the basis of fardbeyan, Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 216/92 was registered and police investigated the case. In the meantime, the informant Mansa succumbed to his injury during treatment. As such police submitted charge -sheet against the appellant and Gandra Oraon under Sections 323 and 304, IPC. During the trial, co -accused Gandra Oraon died and proceeding against him was dropped. The trial Court after examining witnesses adduced on behalf of the prosecution, found and held the appellant guilty under Section 304(II), IPC and sentenced him to serve RI for seven years.
(3.) THIS appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned lower Court has relied upon the evidence, which is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no eye -witness of the occurrence and no circumstantial evidence has been brought on record to connect the appellant guilty under the alleged offences. It is further stressed that the learned lower Court has relied upon the statement of the informant, who was not available for cross -examination and relying on this statement of informant under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, the learned lower Court has wrongly convicted the appellant.;