- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.6.98 passed by the 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) in Sessions Trial No. 1491 97, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty under Sections 149/302 IPC and sentenced them to serve RI for life.
(2.) FACTUAL matrix leading to this appeal are as follows: - In the evening of 23rd October, 96 the informant alongwith PW 3 was tending their cattle outside Marang Guru forest situated within the Khunti P.S. when PW 2 Shambhu Mahto arrived raising alarm that five persons including the four appellants were assaulting the deceased Gambhir Mahto because he has objected the cutting of forest by the appellants. The informant further stated that he alongwith PW 2 Shambhu Mahto ran towards the PO and saw all the appellants assaulting the deceased. The informant thereafter ran towards the village and when he returned with the villagers he found his brother lying dead in the field. He named all the appellants including one Mohan Singh to have assaulted the deceased with Tangi and Balua. Khunti police was informed, which arrived at the PO on 24.10.96, recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, prepared inquest report and started investigation. The police finally submitted charge -sheet against five persons under Section 302/149 IPC. All the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. The case was committed for trial by the court of sessions and the trial court after framing charges, examining witnesses found and held the appellants guilty under Sections 302/149 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned trial court has not considered the contradictions and improbability in the prosecution case. It is further asserted that the prosecution version that entire assault was seen by PWs 1, 2 and 3 stand contradicted by their own statements on record. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Kashyap pointed out that the presence of eye witnesses is ruled out because of the fact that the dead body was recovered from a field whereas the forest was situated at distance from the field. It is also asserted that the question of dispute over cutting out the forest trees does not arise as appellant Sukram Singh Munda has got his own forest. According to Mr. Kashyap when the place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 1.5 kilometers from the village, the probability of villagers reaching at the PO within a short time is not possible. It is also submitted that the deceased and PW 2 has attempted to outrage the modesty of the mother of appellant Rajan Singh Munda on which this incident took place. The learned counsel further pointed out that even if the prosecution story is believed, the offence under Section 302 IPC could not be made out. Therefore, the appellants, who have already remained in custody for last ten years, deserve to be acquitted of the charges.
(3.) WE have anxiously considered the submissions alongwith evidence available on record. The prosecution in the present case has examined 15 witnesses, out of which PWs 4, 5, 6 and 10 are hearsay witnesses, who arrived at the PO after halla and saw the dead body of Gambhir Mahto. PWs 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 have been tendered by the prosecution. PW 15 is Dr. R.S. Sahu, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body and proved the post mortem report as Ext. 6. The post mortem report mentions of a number of incised wounds in left portion of body, left cheek, left clavicle, left shoulder caused by sharp cutting weapon. The dead body further got three injuries on different portion of the body caused with hard and blunt substance. According to post mortem report, death was caused because of above incised injuries.;