D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.9.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 549 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the learned 8th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi held the appellant Rudi Munda guilty under Sec.324 Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to this appeal are that the informant Sukhlal Munda has gone to help his brother -in -law Sambhunath in harvesting the lac crop. It is further stated that on 2nd May, 1997 at 2 PM in the afternoon, when he was harvesting the lac, accused Rudi Munda, Bigan Munda Munda and Charku Munda arrived there armed variously and asked him not to harvest the lac. It is further stated that when Sambhunath asserted that it was his raiyati plot and he will harvest the lac, the accused used bow and arrow with intent to kill him. As alleged, the bow struck the informant on the left side of his chest, he raised alarm and when the villagers started coming, all the accused fled away. This matter was reborted to Silli police same day in the evening at 4.15 PM, on the basis of which Silli P.S. Case No. 21/97 dated 2.5.1997 was registered under Sec.324/307 Indian Penal Code against three persons. The informant was sent for medical treatment and investigation started. The police submitted chargesheet against all the three accused persons under Sec.307/34 IPC. The case was committed for trial by the court of sessions. The trial court framed charges against all the three persons on 18th December, 1997. The trial court after examining the witnesses found and held the appellant Rudi Munda guilty under Section 324 Indian Penal Code only, while acquitting two other accused from the charges.
(3.) THIS appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned lower court has committed a mistake of fact and law on records. It is further asserted that the evidence on records does not support the prosecution story that the appellant has used arrow to cause injury on the informant. It is further asserted that the nature of injury brought on record does not support the case that such injury, superficial and simple in nature, might have been caused if actually bow has struck the informant. It is further asserted that the harvesting of lac was disputed and the informant was a tutored witness. The memo of appeal further mentions that the on admission of the prosecution witness, serious doubts arose in the manner of occurrence as well possession of the lac tree between the parties. The memo of appeal further criticized the manner in which appellant was examined under Sec.313 Cr. P.C.;