D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) ALL the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 148/323 and 304 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for one year and five years respectively, by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 219 of 1987.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that on 3.11.1986, informant Mango Uraon was sitting in front of his house situated in Mauza Pradhanpali when accused Soma Uraon (since dead) came there and asked him to compromise the case pending between them. As further stated, when the informant replied that he. will think over it, altercation started. In the meantime, the appellants along with others arrived at the place of occurrence armed with lathi and danda and started assaulting Mango Uraon and deceased Bishram Kujur who came to his rescue. The appellants fled away when the villagers started arriving. In the meantime, Bishram Kujur having received head injuries was removed for his treatment to. Manoharpur, Primary Health Center and thereafter Rourkella for better treatment. However, the matter was reported to Manoharpur Police Station vide Station Diary Entry No. 42 dated 3.11.1986. Manoharpur Police did not register any case on 3.11.1986. During treatment, Bishram Kujur breathed his last on 8.11.1986 in Rourkella. Thereafter the dead body was subjected to post -mortem examination and the father of deceased Martin Kujur (PW 4) brought the dead body and performed last rites. Since the police did not initiate any action against the aggressors, a registered letter was posted to Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa with copy to other officials -on 18.11.1986. Thereafter, the said Station Diary Entry was taken up as first fardbeyan and Manoharpur Police Station Case No. 43 of 1986 under Sec. 304 of the Indian Penal Code registered against the six persons. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge -sheet against all of them under Ss. 147, 148, 323 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Their cases were committed for trial and they were charged on 12.6.1990. One of the co - accused Soma Uraon was separately charged under Sec. 304 of the Indian Penal Code, but he died during pendency of trial and his name was expunged on 8.5.2000. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution due to dispute for properties between Mango Uraon and the family of Soma Uraon. The learned trial Court after examining the witnesses held all of them guilty under Ss. 148, 323 and 304 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment as stated above.
(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the prosecution case depending upon the information received vide Station Diary Entry No. 42 dated 3.11.1986 has not been brought on record. It is further asserted that the death of deceased Bishram Kujur could not proved caused by assault made by the appellants. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that even if the prosecution version is accepted, non -examination of doctors treating and conducting postmortem examination as well as the investigating officer of this case was fatal for the prosecution case. According to Mr. Sarkhel, the persons alleged to have been injured during occurrence have not been examined to prove the prosecution case beyond doubts. As such, in absence of any medical report regarding cause of death of Bishram Kujur after five days makes the whole prosecution case doubtful. According to learned Counsel, the learned trial Court has wrongly relied upon ocular evidence alone in the case where murder not amounting to culpable homicide has been held committed by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges.;