- (1.) ALL the three appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.6.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Saraikela in Sessions Trial No. 139 of 1988 whereby and whereunder all the three appellants have been convicted under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code in addition to that appellant No. 1 has also been convicted under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other two appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence has been passed against appellant Ramlal Sardar under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the after noon of 23.10.1987 the deceased Bibhisan Sardar had entered in exchange of hot words with appellant Ramlal Sardar in the front of house of Ghasi Ram situated in Mauza Chotadhawla Dih P.S. Seraikella. Further stated the deceased was caught hold by other co -appellants Ramdas and Tura Sardar while Ramlal assaulted him on his forehead with stone. The deceased fell down and the appellants fled away. The occurrence was seen by PW 3 Budhrai Sardar and PW 4 Bhadro Sardar both brothers of the deceased. PW 3 informed his father the informant Ramjit Sardar regarding the incident who arrived at the place of occurrence to find his son already dead. The police was informed which arrived at the place of occurrence next day at 8 a.m. and recorded the statement of PW 2 to register a case under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three appellants. The police further prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post -mortem examination. Finally charge -sheet was submitted against the appellants for which they were tried and found and held guilty by trial Court. The appellants have been sentenced to serve R.I. for life.
(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the appellants have not intended to cause death of deceased. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the deceased might have fallen on stone in drunken stage resulting in his death. According to learned Counsel for the appellant assault made during sudden fit of passion should not have been accepted as intention to cause death. It has been also pointed out that the eye -witness have not alleged repeated blows. As such, the conviction under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable.;