- (1.) SOLE appellant Sukra Oraon stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life, by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1995.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the morning of 8.8.1990, deceased Madhu Orain was going to the field of Tairas Tigga for the purpose of plantation of paddy. According to informant P.W.2, he along with P.W.1 were working in the Bari when they saw the appellant having rushed after the informant's mother with a tangi in his hand. It is Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India further asserted that the appellant alleging that the deceased was a Dian, assaulted her with Bhujali in his hand causing injuries on her neck. The deceased fell down on the village road and died. The informant along with other villagers chased the appellant who managed the run away. The incident was seen by villagers working in the fields. The reason behind this assault was that the appellant had suspected that the deceased performed witchcraft resulting in illness of his children as well as animals. When the informant was going to inform the police, it arrived at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of informant at about 12.00 noon. Thereafter, the police registered Sisai Police Station Case No. 88 of 1990 under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The police sent the dead body for post -mortem examination after preparing inquest report. The police finally submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial of the petitioner was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was framed against him on 17.10.1990 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. However, the learned trial court after examining the witnesses found and held the appellant guilty under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to serve rigorous imprisonment for life.
(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned trial court having relied upon interested and related witnesses committed a mistake of fact and law. Mr. R.S. Majumdar, and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant, vehemently argued that the trial court having relied upon on ocular evidence alone found and held the appellant guilty under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the post -mortem report does not support the story of the prosecution case. According to them, the doctor did not find undigested food in the stomach of the deceased. Therefore, a reasonable doubt has been created regarding the time of occurrence, manner of assault and improbability of the witnesses having seen the occurrence. It is also contended that P.W.1 and P.W.2 had no occasion to see the assault because they were working in their Bari when the incident took place. Our attention was drawn towards the improbability that it the incident was seen by P.W.1 and P.W.2 why they did not intervene during the assault. It is also submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for last seventeen years.;