D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 603 of 2005 dated 28th August, 2006 and 30th August, 2006 respectively, whereby, this appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for causing murder of Fagan Mundain.
(2.) The case of the Prosecution: The case of the prosecution is that on 13th June, 2005 at 12:15 hours (i.e 12.15 P.M) the informant Johan Munda (P.W7) along with other witnesses namely Shyam Prasad Singh and Sukh Lal Munda gave fardbeyan to police that his daughter Fagan Mundain (deceased) was married with Gondra Munda of village Armalatgara Dumardiha in the year 1995-96 and out of that wedlock she had three children. The informant further alleged that his son in law Gondra Munda died 5 to 6 years after his marriage and his daughter was living in her son in law house after his son in law's death. Thereafter for about 2 years his daughter was residing with her cousin brother in law (Dewar) Baga Munda (accused) in capacity of his wife with her three children. After some time Baga Munda started assaulting his daughter for which informant pacified the matter between them. The informant further alleged that on 12th June, 2005 at about 05:00 P.M. when he was in his house, one Charku Munda of village Dumerdiha came to his house and informed him that Baga Munda had assaulted his daughter Fagan Mundain and when she become unconscious then he poured kerosene oil on her and lit the fire, as such, she succumbed to burn injury. The informant further alleged that due to evening he was not able to go in the said village, but, in the morning he along with his daughter Dulari Mandain and Soninlaw Sukh Lal Munda had gone to the house of his son in law situated at village Dumerdiha, where, he saw the dead body of his daughter lying inside the room having severe burn injury on her body and accused Baga Munda was absconding. The informant further alleged that accused Baga Munda brutally assaulted his daughter and when she became unconscious, he poured kerosene oil upon her body and lit the fire due to which she succumbed to burn injury and after committing murder he fled away from the village. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution: JUDGEMENT_86_LAWS(JHAR)10_2017_1.html Exhibits - Ext. 1 - L.T.I mark of Budhu Munda in seizure list. Ext. 1/1 - Signature of Sukh Lal Munda in the seizure list. Ext. 2 - Signature of Sukh Lal Munda in the FIR. Ext. 3 - Fardbeyan in writing and signature of literate constable Arun Kumar and in signature of Alok Kumar officer incharge of Lapung Police Station Ext. 3/1 -Endorsement of Alok Kumar, officer incharge in fardbeyan. Ext. 4 - Formal FIR Ext. 5 - Seizure list Ext. 6 - Postmortem report
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant: It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder, committed by this appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. There are major omissions and contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. Charku Munda, who has informed the informant, has been examined at all by the prosecution. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no eye witness to the incident. Even prosecution witnesses P. W.1 and P.W.3 have stated that they have seen the incident at all, whereas, other witnesses are hearsay witnesses. P.W.8 is an Investigating Officer and P.W.9 is a Doctor. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7 are close relatives of the deceased and they are interested witnesses. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and, hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court in Sessions Trial No. 603 of 2005 deserves to be quashed and set aside.;