D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THE sole appellant Jatal Rabidas stands convicted under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for six years by the Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 172 of 1998.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to conviction of the appellant are that in the noon at about 12.00 hours on 11th February, 1998, the informant while working in his agricultural field, heard some cries and saw the appellant assaulting a lady with fists and kicks mercilessly. It is further alleged that the appellant thereafter took a stone and assaulted the lady on her head resulting in bleeding injuries, saying that he will not leave her. The informant raised alarms and went towards the appellant to rescue the lady. Other witnesses attracted by the alarms raised by the informant also came rushing there, seeing which the appellant tried to run away. However, the appellant was caught hold by the villagers and the injured lady was brought to hospital for her treatment where she succumbed to her injuries. This incident was reported by the informant to Birsa Nagar (Telco) Police Station in Telco Main Hospital on 12.2.1998. On the basis of which, Telco Police Station Case No. 36 of 1998 dated 12.2.1998 was registered against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The police finally charge - sheeted the appellant and he was committed to the Court of Sessions , for his trial. The trial Court after framing charge on 3.8.1998 against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code conducted the trial and ultimately found him guilty under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) THE main contentions raised before me in the memo of appeal are that the order of conviction is liable to be set aside as the facts have not been proved beyond doubts. It is asserted that no independent witness has corroborated the factum of assault and in absence of the Investigating Officer the defence stands prejudiced. It is further asserted that the motive for killing has not been proved and the lower Court ignored the defence of the appellant that he was innocent.;