D.P.SINGH,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.2.95 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 44/93, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty under Sections, 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to serve RI for life.
(2.) THE brief fact leading to this appeal are that the informant, Sohan Gope, PW 5, along with the deceased and PW 6 was going towards the village pond to attend the call of nature in the evening of 9th May, 1992, when he saw the appellants coming from behind carrying tangi. It is further stated that they over took the deceased Siba Gope and started assaulting him with tangi resulting injuries on his head and neck, after which he fell down. The informant further asserted that due to this attack Siba died on the spot and out of fear they could not resist and protest. Therefore when the appellants fled away from the spot he along PW 6 arrives at the house of the deceased and informed his son, PW 7 regarding the incident. The villagers were also informed, who arrived at the PO and saw the deceased. The reason behind this occurrence is said to be old enmity between the deceased and the appellants. The matter was reported to Raidih police on the same evening at 7.30 PM, who recorded the statement of PW 5 and registered Raidih P.S. Case No. 33/92 under Sections 302/34 IPC. Both the appellants were put on trial by the First ADJ, Gumla after framing of charge on 5.3.93. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. However, the trial court after examining witnesses found and held both of them guilty under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid.
(3.) THE appellants remained in custody throughout the trial and even during pendency of the appeal. The main point raised in this appeal is that the learned trial court has not considered the contradictory statements of PWs 5, 6 and 7. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the evidence of eye witnesses are uncorroborated and contradictory and deserve to be disbelieved. However, the trial court has accepted their evidence. It was also asserted that the injury report prepared by PW 2, the doctor conducting the post mortem examination mentions only four injuries. It is further contended that because of enmity false prosecution cannot be ruled out. As such appellants may be acquitted of the charges.;