- (1.) SINCE sole appellant Gurdhu Soren has preferred these two appeals, Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 1995 (P) from jail, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 422 of 1992 [16 of 1993.]
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to these appeals are that on 8th of March 1992 at about 5.00 P.M., deceased Sukul Hembrom and the appellant were standing on village road in Mauza - Deliyadanga, Police Station - Pakur, when the appellant asked the deceased to provide him with drinks. Further stated, when the deceased refused to oblige the appellant with drinks, he stabbed the deceased twice on his chest and back resulting in his death on the spot. This incident was seen by the informant, P.W.10, who raised alarms on which P.W.6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 arrived, to see the appellant standing with dagger in his hand. Further stated, when the appellant was chased, he ran towards east of the village throwing dagger. However, the appellant was overpowered by villagers and brought to police station. The statement of P.W. 10 was recorded by Pakur Police Station, on the basis of which, Pakur Police Station Case No. 47 dated 83.1992 under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The police prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post -mortem examination and finally submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial where he was charged on 1.5.1993 for offence under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. However, the learned trial court after examining witnesses found and held him guilty for the offence and sentenced him as stated above.
(3.) THE present appeals have been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial court has committed mistake by placing reliance upon the interested witnesses. It is also asserted that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the offence. The memo of appeal further challenges the injuries found on the deceased suggesting that such injuries are possible with iron rod. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that due to non -examination of the Investigating Officer, prejudice has been caused to the defence. Learned Counsel further drew our attention towards some minor contradictions in the statements of eyewitnesses of the occurrence. According to learned Counsel, the occurrence took place while the deceased was demanding drinks from the appellant and not as per the prosecution version. ;