D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 5th May, 2000 and 6th May, 2000 respectively, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 112/14 of 1997, whereby, the appellant -accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - has been imposed, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant -accused.
(2.) IF the facts of the prosecution are unfolded, the relevant facts are as under : Incident has taken place on 22nd November, 1996 at 10:00 p.m. The deceased namely Kairi Kui expired at village - Gurgaon and P.W. 1 has filed an FIR at Majhgaon Police Station, District -Singhbhum West. In presence of other witnesses, P.W. 1 had disclosed that the appellant -accused has committed murder of informant's bhabhi, namely, Kairi Kui by assaulting her by piece of stone and her dead body was lying in her Khalihan. The name of prosecution witnesses have also been referred in the FIR and the motive is also referred in the FIR that the appellant's sister was expired and the. appellant was under belief that the deceased has played witchcraft, therefore, sister of the appellant -accused was killed by her and, therefore, revenge has been taken by the appellant - accused. Upon recording of the FIR, investigation was carried out, statements of other witnesses were recorded, charge -sheet was filed and upon appreciating the evidences before the trial Court, the appellant -accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Kairi Kui. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, who has submitted that the whole case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence. There is no eye - witness of the incidence. The only evidence is the oral confession, which is a very weak piece of evidence. In fact, there is no confession by the appellant -accused. The witnesses namely Surendra Pingua (P.W. 1) and Janki. Kui (P.W. 5) are the partisan witnesses and relatives of the deceased. There is no corroboration to the depositions of these witnesses. The Court witness is also a got up witness. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and, therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the trial Court, deserve to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant -accused that the medical evidence is not corroborative to the depositions of P.W. 1, P. W. 3, and P.W. 5 and is also not corroborative to the depositions of the Court witness. Prosecution is not sure about the weapon used by the appellant -accused whether it was the stone or lathi or sharp cutting instrument. Thus, in absence of eye -witness, there is discrepancy in the medical evidence and the depositions of P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and the Court witness. Prosecutions has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubts, the offence of murder of Kairi Kui and, therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court deserve to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) WE have heard learned A.P.P. for the State, who has vehemently submitted that the prosecution has proved the offence of murder of Kairi Kui beyond reasonable doubts, which has been committed by the appellant -accused. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the prosecution is strongly relying upon the depositions, given by P.W.1, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 and the Court witness. P.W. 1 is an informant, who has immediately filed FIR. The appellant -accused is named in the FIR. Further prosecution witnesses have also named the appellant in the FIR. P.W. 1 has clearly narrated before the trial Court that the appellant -accused had come at the house of P.W. 1. at 10:00.p.m. and has stated before P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 that as Kairi Kui (deceased) has played witchcraft and as she has killed his sister, he has completed his work by committing her murder. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that, there is enough corroboration to the deposition of P.W. 1 by the evidences of other witnesses i.e. P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and by the Court witness. There is also corroboration regarding time of occurrence, place of occurrence, the weapons and the blood stains, which were found at the place of scene of offence. Court witness is also an important witness, who has seen accused coming out of the house of the deceased with lathi He has also seen him running away and the appellant -accused was not available to the prosecution for investigation, initially, though, he was named in the FIR, which is lodged on 23rd November, 1996 at about 16:00 hours. The appellant -accused had surrendered before the concerned trial Court on 27th November, 1996. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that motive has also been established and it has also been referred in the FIR. Thus, the, evidences of P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and the Court witness are consistent, natural and they are trustworthy witnesses and, therefore, rightly, their evidences have been relied upon by the trial Court and no error has been committed by the trial Court in convicting the appellant -accused for the offence of murder of Kairi Kui. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that there was no inimical terms between the prosecution witnesses and the appellant -accused and, therefore, there is no reason for the prosecution witnesses to give false evidence before the trial Court. In these set of circumstances, the appellant -accused has been rightly punished for the offence of murder of the deceased and, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.;