D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE present appeal is arising out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla vide order dated 19th/20th of July, 2000, respectively in Sessions Trial No. 221 of 1989, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment. Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
(2.) IF the case of the prosecution, if unfolded, the facts are as under : '' "It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased, namely, Tirsus Ekka, and his son Barned Ekka (PW 6) had gone to the field on 30th of March, 1989, in the morning hours for work in their field. Accused persons came there with weapons in their hands, namely, tangi (sharp cutting instrument) and a lathi (hard and blunt substance) and chased the deceased and his son (PW 6) and assaulted the deceased. Appellant No. 1 was having tangi in his hand whereas appellant No. 2 was having lathi in his hand. Several injuries were caused to Tirsus Ekka, who expired on the spot. In the nearby field several persons were there. One of them was examined as PW 7. PW 6, who is a son of the deceased, was also in field, who having been chased by these appellants came running to his house and informed his mother who is Smt. Rejina Tirkey (PW4) and PW 3 was also informed by PW 4 about the whole incident and immediately the FIR was filed on the very same day on 30th of March, 1989, at about 11.00 a.m.. They all rushed to the field where the dead body of the deceased was lying. Statements of the eye -witnesses were recorded, chargesheet was filed against this appellantsaccused and the Sessions Trial No. 221 of 1989, was registered against them and upon appreciating the evidences on record, both the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302to be read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment." We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, who has mainly submitted that when there are lot of omissions and contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the alleged eye -witnesses are not reliable and are untrustworthy. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted that alleged eye -witnesses PW 6 and PW 7 are the interested eyewitnesses. PW 6 is a minor witness and at the relevant time he was aged about 12 years. It is also submitted that there was a lot of disputes between the accused side persons and the deceased and several civil litigations were pending and, therefore, they have been wrongly roped in the offence. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the name of appellant No. 2 i.e. Kuldip Minz, who is referred as original accused No. 1, was never named in the FIR and subsequently his name has been added and there is no Test Identification Parade. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial Court and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, who has submitted that the case of the prosecution is based upon two eye -witnesses namely PW 6 and PW 7, who have narrated the whole incident, in detail and without omissions and contradictions. There is enough corroboration to the depositions of these eye -witnesses by the depositions of PW 3 and PW 4 as well as by the depositions of PW 1. Weapons used by the appellants -accused are tangi, a sharp cutting instrument and Lathi. There are number of injuries upon the deceased by these two weapons. Injuries No. 1 to 4 are capable of being caused by tangi which was used by appellant No. 1 (original accused No. 2) and the weapon lathi was used by appellant No. 2 (original accused No. 1). Injury No. 5 is capable of being caused by lathi. The sternum was broken from middle. The medical evidence is corroborative to the depositions of the eye -witnesses. Looking to the deposition of PW 8, weapons were recovered, blood stained earth was also found out at the field, dead body was also lying in the field. Thus, there is enough corroboration to the depositions of the eye - witnesses. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that in FIR though name of Kuldip was not referred, but, there is a reference of one unknown person. Thus, looking to the FIR, there is a genesis of appellant No. 2. Informant is not an eyewitness. Informant is PW 3, who has got information from other eye - witnesses, but, looking to the depositions of PW 6 and PW 7, who are the eye -witnesses, they have given the name of appellant No. 2 i.e. of Kuldip, weapon is also narrated which was in his hand and looking to the medical evidence, there is a corroborative injury i.e. injury No. 5 otherwise, also FIR is a rough sketch of the whole incident and not an encyclopedia of the whole incident. Arun Choudhury Versus State Of Jharkhand;