D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence both dated 15th September, 1999, passed by the learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 647 of 1996, whereby, the sole appellant -accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
(2.) IF the prosecution case is unfolded, the facts of the case are as under : It is the case of the prosecution that on 24th June, 1999 at about 10.00 p.m. when mother of a female child of one and half month, namely, Sita Devi (PW 4), was sitting at the house of her mother i.e. at her parental house and when she was having her baby in her lap, the appellant -accused, who is also residing in front of their house, came there at night hours, forcibly took away the female child of one and half month from the lap of Sita Devi (PW 4) and carried the child at his house and that too, at the back side of the house and caused murder of the baby. When the informant Sita Devi (PW 4) had rushed at his house to have her baby, the appellant -accused refused to give and thereafter, PW 4 went to call her mother Malti Devi (PW 2). Thereafter, PW 2 and PW 4 both went to have the baby back from the appellant -accused and they found that blood was coming out from the nose of the baby and she was dead. Immediately, they informed PW 6, who is husband of PW 4, and thereafter, First Information Report was registered on 25th June, 1996 at 9.30 a.m. After lodging the First Information Report, investigation was carried out, statements of the witnesses were recorded and charge -sheet was filed against the present appellant -accused. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 647 of 1996 and after recording the evidence on record and after appreciating the same by the trial Court, the present appellant - accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, as stated hereinabove, for committing murder of the baby. Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant -accused. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant -accused that there is no eye -witness to the whole incident. The alleged PW 4 (Sita Devi) has also not seen the appellant -accused committing the murder of the baby. Moreover, there is no inimical terms or relationship between the informant and the appellant -accused. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant -accused that the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 are relatives of the deceased and, thus, no reliance may be placed upon these prosecution witnesses. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant -accused that looking to the evidence, given by Dr. Ram Swarup Shah (PW 1), it appears that there is no corroboration to the deposition of PW 4. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the trial Court, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, who has submitted that it is the present appellant - accused, who has forcibly taken away the baby aged about one and half month from the lap of PW 4. PW 4 (Sita Devi) is the mother of the deceased baby. Thereafter, the appellant -accused had taken away the baby at his house and that too at the back side of his house. When PW 4 immediately rushed there and demanded for the baby, the appellant -accused refused to give her, the baby. Blood was coming out from the nose of the baby and, therefore, PW 4 shouted and called PW 2, who is mother of PW 4, and both of them have seen the blood coming out from the nose of the baby. The appellant -accused was not giving the baby to PW 4 or PW 2 and, therefore, they have to snatch away the baby and they found that the baby aged about one and half month was dead. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that looking to the deposition, given by PW 1, who is Dr. Ram Swarup Shah and who has carried out the post -mortem examination on 25th June, 1996 at about 14 hours, it appears that the doctor has stated that the death has taken place within 6 to 24 hours and the death may be caused by simply covering her nose with clothes. There were haemorrhage spots on both the lungs. This evidence of PW 1 gives enough corroboration to the depositions, given by PW 4 and PW 2 and these depositions of the prosecution witnesses have been properly appreciated by the trial Court and the appellant -accused has been rightly, therefore, punished for the offence of committing murder of the deceased and, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, awarded by the trial Court to the appellant - accused, in this Criminal Appeal.;