D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of his conviction dated 21.9.1995 and the corresponding order of sentence for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions trial No. 12 of 1995. The appellant was charged with and tried for the offences under Sections 302/324 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he had committed murder of the informant's minor son, Mohan Hansda and also voluntarily inflicted injury to the informant's husband, Ramdhan Hansda (PW 5).
(2.) THE appellant has denied the charges pleading not guilty and has claimed innocence and of his implication on false accusation. The case of the prosecution, registered on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, Fulmani Soran (PW 3) on 20.9.1994 is that on the same day at about 12 noon, the informant's husband (PW 5) went to the house of his uncle, Lakhan Hansda within the village. A near relative of Lakhan Hansda had come from village Pichhari and was also present at the house of Lakhan Hansda. Two sons of Lakhan Hansda, namely, Badan Hansda and Babusar Hansda were also present at his house. The informant also followed her husband to the house of Lakhan Hansda where she saw Lakhan Hansda and his two sons, including present appellant and a relative of Lakhan Hansda having discussions with the informant's husband. At about 3.30 p.m. all on a sudden, Badan Hansda (appellant) approached the informant's husband with knife and assaulted him with the weapon inflicting injuries on his body. The victim ran away to the house followed by the informant. Thereafter the appellant, Badan Hansda caught hold of the informant's son, Mohan Hansda, aged about 10 years and assaulted him with a sharp pointed iron rod in the armpit region. The boy succumbed to his injury at the spot. On the alarms of the informant, several villagers rushed there. The informant promptly took her injured husband to the Primary Health Centre at Pakur with the assistance of co -villagers. The motive behind the alleged occurrence is land dispute.
(3.) THE case was initially registered for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 341, 324, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge -sheet for the aforesaid offences recommending trial of the present appellant. However, the charge against the appellant was not framed for the offence under Sec. 307 or under Sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code and it was confined to the offences under Sections 302/324 of the Indian Penal Code.;