- (1.) SOLE appellant Suraj 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 3rdAdditional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 707 of 1993.
(2.) BRIEF facts lending to this appeal are that deceased Cherga Oraon has gone with the appellant in the morning of 6.3.1993 and he did not return till night. As further stated, P.W.I Budha Oraon, the informant and uncle of the deceased, came to know at 7.30 P.M. that the deceased has been injured by someone. He goes to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying badly injured, blood oozing out from his body and one female, wife of Ganshu Pian, trying to put water in his mouth. He further asserted that when he went near the diceased, he disclosed that the appellant has given dagger blow on his chest and he will die and by this time, P.W.3, wife of the deceased as well as other villagers assembled there. They were also informed regarding overt act committed by the appellant against the deceased. The deceased breathed his last in their presence. Next day in the morning at 7.30 A.M., police arrived at the spot and recorded the statement of Budha Oraon and on the basis of which, Ratu Police Station Case No. 34 of 1993 under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. The police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against him on the basis of which, the trial of the appellant was initiated by framing charge under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 30.6.1994. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution, However, after examining the witnesses, the trial court found and held him guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to serve rigorous imprisonment for life. At one stage of the appeal, it was asserted before this Court that the appellant was of unsound mind. However, this has come on record that the Medical Board found him mentally alert and fit.
(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that there was no eyewitness of the occurrence and the conviction was made on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is also submitted by Mrs. Lily Sahy, learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has failed to consider the material contradictions available on records in prosecution version between eyewitnesses of the occurrence. According to Mrs. Sahay, the incident was reported to police in the evening of 6.3.1993 by P.W.4 and that version has been concealed. It was also submitted that the informant having received information went to the place of occurrence but he does not disclose the name from whom this information was received neither the said person has been produced before the trial court to substantiate this fact. It is also submitted that P.W.3 Panho, wife of the deceased has not asserted before the trial court that deceased has disclosed the name of the appellant. According to Mrs. Sahay, there was contradiction in the statements of P.W.3 and P. W. 5 regarding the manner in which assault took place. Therefore, the appellant having already remained in custody for more than fourteen years may be acquitted of the charges.;