- (1.) SOLE appellant Rup Chand Mahto stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/210 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 163 of 1995, 23 of 1995. However, no separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the morning of 17.8.1994 informant Kamal Prasad was working in his field when he heard alarms raised by deceased Rameshwar Mahto from his Bart. The informant rushed to the Bari of the deceased to find that the appellant was trying to push the deceased within the earth having caused injuries on his neck and chest. The informant tried to catch hold of the appellant, but he managed to flee away with bloodstained Tangi towards forest. The incident was seen by one Raj Pokhraj Prasad also. According to h'm, this incident took place because - of the dispute between the deceased and the appellant, both own brothers, regarding land. The. matter was reported to Barhi Police, which arrived at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of P.W. 4, on the basis of which Barhi Police Station Case No. 190 of 1994 under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. Police arrested the appellant, prepared inquest report, and sent the dead body for post -mortem examination. Accordingly, charge -sheet was submitted against him and he was put on trial after framing of charge on 19.9.1995, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be innocent, However, the learned trial Court after examining the witnesses found and held him guilty for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as stated above.
(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned trial Court has committed a mistake by relying upon the evidence of interested witnesses. It is also asserted by Mr. B.V. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the learned trial Court has not considered the possibility of false implication due to land dispute. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1 Raj Pokhraj Prasad does not support the medical evidence and contradicts the evidence of informant. Learned Counsel pointed out that the witnesses have asserted several blows with tangi, however, the doctor has found only two injuries on the dead body. Therefore, the non -examination of independent witnesses creates a reasonable doubt upon the prosecution case. It was also stressed that the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 do not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 4, brother -in -law of the deceased should not have been relied to held the appellant guilty. Further criticisms were made against the evidence of P.W. 5, P. W. 6 and the investigating officer. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appellant may be acquitted of the charges.;