D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) BY judgement dated 20.09.1999 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 375 of 1996 /60 of 1996, the appellant Biren Napit was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant has challenged the judgement of his conviction and sentence in this appeal.
(2.) FACTS of the prosecutions case on the basis of which charge was framed against the appellant as appearing from the Fardbeyan of the informant Dhaneshwari Devi (PW -10) widow of the deceased Dilip Napit, recorded by the police officer at 3 A.M. on 21.06.1996 at a Nursing Home namely "Chaudhary Nursing Home  is as follows : In the night of 21.06.1996 while the informant along with other members of her family including the deceased Dilip Napit was sleeping within the Verandah inside the courtyard of their house, the appellant, who happens to be the informants cousin, arrived at the place where the deceased and others were sleeping and assaulted one of the sleeping persons, namely Bindeshwar Napit, on his neck with a Basula (a sharp cutting iron chisel used for chiseling wood). In the same transaction, the appellant also assaulted another member of the family namely Purusattom Napit, with the same weapon on his neck. On hearing the cries, the informant woke up and saw the appellant attempting to assault her husband Dilip Napit. By the time she attempted to intervene, the appellant had already inflicted the Basuli Blow on the head of her husband and again another blow which caused injury on the victims right hand. The appellant allegedly caught hold of the informant by the tuft of her hair, assaulted her on her head and felled her on the ground. On hearing the commotion when the informants brother -in -law and others came running, the appellant fled away from there. On concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet recommending the appellants trial for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was charged accordingly for the aforesaid offence. Denying the charges and pleading not guilty, the appellant had preferred to be tried.
(3.) ALTOGETHER 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution at the trial. Besides the oral evidence of witnesses, the prosecution had also adduced in evidence the F.I.R., the postmortem report and the injury reports of the injured persons. The appellant in his defence had also examined one witness. In his defence the appellant raised a defence that he has been implicated falsely in this case only in order to shield the actual culprits who belong to the informants own family. It was sought to be explained that there was an illicit relationship between Purusattom Napit and the informant Dhaneshwari Devi on account of which there was a quarrel and dispute between the members of the two families which had resulted in the injury on the deceased and the other members of the family and the appellant has been made scapegoat only on account of the previous enmity over land dispute between the members of the two families.;