PRASHANT KUMAR, J. - (1.) IN this appeal the sole appellant Markus Kujur has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.7.2000 and 25.7.2000 respectively passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 102 of 1999 whereby and whereunder he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for murder of Flora Kujur and Mangri Kerketta.
(2.) THE case of prosecution, in short, as per the fard beyan of PW 6 (Sunil Kerketta) is that on 31.1.1999 when he returned to his house at 1 p.m. from forest he did not find his mother Mangri Kerketta in the house. However at that time itself, he heard the yelling sound of a woman from the side of Chutia Nala. Hearing the said sound, he saw towards Chutia Nala and found that Markus Kujur (appellant) was assaulting Flora Kujur with an axe (tangi). It is further alleged that seeing the incident he raised hulla in the village and requested the villagers for apprehending Markus Kujur. It is further stated that on hearing hulla, Namjan Topno, Salan Topno, Benjamin Kujur and others came towards the Nala and saw that Markus Kujur was fleeing towards his house holding an axe in his hand. It is further stated that when the aforesaid persons and other villagers tried to apprehend Markus Kujur, he threatened and chased them. However, when several villagers arrived, they caught hold of Markus Kujur. It is alleged that before the villagers, he confessed that he had killed Mangri Kerketta and Flora Kujur while they were taking bath in Chutia Nala and their dead bodies are lying in the water. Thereafter, the informant and other villagers went to Chutia Nala and found the dead body of Mangri Kerketta and Flora Kujur floating in the water of Chutia Nala. It is further alleged that prior to the occurrence, father of Markus Kujur had given land to informant's grandfather over which they had constructed their house. It is alleged that Markus Kujur had been pressing the informant and his family members for removing the said house from the said land for sometime past. When the father of the informant refused to remove the said house. Markus threatened to kill them. It is stated that due to the said reason, Markus Kujur killed informant's mother Mangri Kerketta and Flora Kujur. On the basis of aforesaid fard beyan Basia P.S. Case No. 0008 of 1999 dated 31.1.1999 under Section 302 of the IPC was instituted and police took up investigation. After completing the investigation, police submitted charge -sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. After commitment of the case, the charge was framed against the sole appellant for committing the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The said charge was explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution also brought on record Ext. 1 series the signatures of witnesses on the inquest report, Ext. 2 series -signatures of witness on fard beyan, Exts. 3 and 3/1 - the two post -mortem reports. Ext.4 -the fard beyan, Exts. 5 and 5/1 -the two inquest reports, Ext. the O.D. slip of appellant Markus Kujur and Ext. 7 -the formal FIR. The appellant was then examined under Section 313 of the Cr PC in which his defence is of total denial. The learned Court below after considering the evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
(3.) IT is submitted by Sri G.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant that this case is based on sole testimony of PW 6 who claims himself to be the eye -witness of the occurrence. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW 6 is unreliable and the same cannot be the sole basis for conviction. It is further submitted that the PW 6 who is informant of this case is the son of deceased Mangri Kerketta. Admittedly they had strained relation with the appellant. Under the circumstance, the evidence of PW 6 can not be solely relied for convicting the appellant. It is submitted that the weapon allegedly used in the commission of crime has not been produced in the Court, which cast a serious doubt on the case of prosecution. Even the seizure list of the alleged tangi has not been produced. In view of the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution case, appellant deserves to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned judgment of the Court below cannot be sustained.;