D.N.PATEL,ACTG.J. - (1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 19th October, 2009 and 23rd October, 2009 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court v. Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 129 of 2006. This appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and awarded a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life for causing murder of his wife Smt. Jema Deogam.
(2.) Case of the prosecution: The case of the prosecution is that on 26th February, 2006 at 10.00 hrs (i.e. 10 a.m.), informant Sunita Deogam (P.W.3) gave fardbeyan to police in 'Ho' language in presence of Dakua Gangaram Surin (P.W.-1), who was translating the same in Hindi. Informant stated that she was studying in the night school of her village. It has been stated by P.W.3 that on 25th February, 2006, i.e. the day before the fardbeyan was given, at about 8 p.m., after taking dinner and drinking Haria her mother Jema Deogam (deceased) and her father Dumbi Deogam alias Sikur Deogam (appellant-accused) had an altercation over some missing bamboo plants and informant heard her father telling her mother that today he would kill her and as her mother counter replied, her father got annoyed and ultimately put her down on the ground in his Angan and started pressing her neck. Her mother started screaming and informant, along with her grand-mother Kairi Kui, came there and tried to save her mother. Her father threatened them that he would kill both of them. Informant ran towards the house of her neighbour raising hullah and when her neighbours came, her father ran away from there and her mother died. P.W.-1 Ganga Ram Surin Declared hostile. He proved his signature in the Inquest Report and seizure list i.e. marked as Exts.1 and 2 respectively. He has proved his signature in the fardbayan i.e. marked as Ext.3 P.W.-2 Lakho Sawaiyan Delcared a hostile witness. He has proved his signature in the inquest report and seizure list i.e. marked as Ext.1/1 and Ext.2/1 respectively P.W.3 Sunita Deogam She is the informant of this case and is daughter of Jema (Aged about 10 years) Deogam (deceased). Declared hostile. She has proved her signature in the fardbayan i.e. marked as Ext. 3/1 P.W.4 Singrai Deogam Declared hostile P.W.5 Smt. Menjo Bodra Declared hostile P.W.6. Mukund Sawaiya, Declared hostile s/o Kandey Sawaiya P.W.7 Mukund Sawiayan Declared hostile s/o late Dumbi Sawaiyan P.W.8 Dr. B.K. Pandit He is the doctor who has conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Smt. Jema Deogam and has proved the post-mortem report i.e. marked as Ext. 5. P.W.9. Ram Prasad He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has Paswan (I.O.) Proved the carbon copy of inquest report and seizure list i.e. marked as Exts. 6 and 7 respectively. He has proved the carbon copy of report for enquiry of seized exhibit and has also proved the memo of arrest of accused i.e. marked as Ext. 8 and 9 respectively. He has proved the injury requisition of deceased and has also proved the confessional statement of accused i.e. marked as Exts. 10 and 11 respectively. He has proved the fardbevan i.e. marked as Ext.12. Exhibits:- Ext.1-Signature of Ganga Ram Surin in inquest report Ext.1/1-Signature of Lakho Sawaiyan in Inquest report. Ext.2-Signature of Ganga Ram Surin in Seizure list. 2/1-Signature of Lakho Sawaiyan in Seizure list. Ext.3-Signature of Ganga Ram Surin in fardbayan. Ext.3/1 -Signature of Sunita Deogam in fardbeyan Ext.4- F.S.L. report. Ext.5.-Post-mortem report
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant: Counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is also submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to establish the presence of this appellant at the place of occurrence on 25th February, 2006 at about 8 p.m., viz. at the relevant time. It is also submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that the informant P.W.3 (daughter of the deceased as well as daughter of this appellant) has turned hostile. The statement made before police was in 'Ho' language, but, so called translator, who translated the same, has also turned hostile. Therefore, said statement was also proved by the prosecution. Moreover, a single connecting evidence has been proved by the prosecution which involves the present appellant in causing murder of his wife. The judgment of conviction has been passed by the learned trial court on the basis of presumptions and surmises. Prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the material i.e. blood stained ' Lungi of the appellant because no particular blood group has been pointed out in the forensic Science Laboratory report. Moreover, prosecution has also failed to prove that there was any blood stain near the dead body when the dead body was recovered. It appears that only on the basis of signature proved on the First Information Report, inquest report and post-mortem report, this appellant has been convicted by the trial court. In fact, there is no evidence at all against this appellant in connection with the murder of his wife. Even the First Information Report was lodged by the informant at a much belated stage as the incident has taken place on 25th February, 2006 and the First Information Report was lodged on 26th February, 2006. These aspects of the matter was appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that neither there is any eye witness to the incident nor there is any prosecution witness who has seen this appellant going into the house or coming out of the house at the time of occurrence nor any prosecution witness has seen this appellant accused running away from the house just after the the occurrence. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the offence committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt.;