D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction, dated 19th & 20th of July, 1999, respectively in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 1993, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby the appellants -accused have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on that count.
(2.) IF the facts of the prosecution case are unfolded, they are as under: - On 21st of May, 1991, at about 7 p.m. when Krishna Ram, informant (P.W.6) and his brother Viz. Bishu Ram (deceased) were returning from Village -Lohrai (within Chhattarpur Police Station), appellants -accused came there and caught hold the brother of the informant -Bishu Ram and after giving threat of killing, they took away the brother of the informant along with them. Thereafter, the informant (P.W.6) informed the villager, but, no body had gone outside the village at the night hours and thereafter, the informant started searching his brother from the next day morning and found out the dead -body of Bishu Ram, lying in a barren field of one Shri Bachchu Lala (not examined), where the deceased was found beheaded. The dead -body was found out on 23rd of May, 1991, and thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged on 24th of May, 1991, at about 7 a. m. at Chhattarpur Police Station, bearing Police Station Case No. 36 of 1991. Thereafter, the investigation was carried out, statements of witnesses were recorded and charge -sheet was submitted and after commitment the case was numbered Sessions Trial No. 58 of 1993, and the trial court upon appreciating the evidence, convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 to be read with Section 201 of Indian Penal Code, for life imprisonment and against this judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants -accused. When the matter is called out, learned counsel for the appellantsaccused is absent. Though the matter is being taken up on day to day basis since 25th of August, 2009, till date, the learned counsel has not come and not argued out the case on behalf of the appellants -accused.
(3.) WE have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, at length, from 25th of August, 2009, onwards. She has meticulously read over the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and has submitted that P.W.6 is informant and brother of deceased. It is submitted that though the deceased was taken away by the appellants -accused on 21st of May, 1991, neither any F.I.R. was lodged nor any complaint was made by the informant to the police and for the first time on 24th of May, 1991, the F.I.R. was lodged at Chhattarpur Police Station. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the villagers, but, they have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted by Additional Public Prosecutor that P.W.3 is a Doctor namely Mithilesh Prasad Singh who has carried out the postmortem examination of dead -body on 24th of May, 1991, and has narrated the injury upon the deceased. P. Ws. 4 and 5 are formal witnesses and P.W.5 has proved the F.I.R. which is Exhibit -3. It is submitted by A.P.P. that though there is no eye -witnesses of the incident, but, looking to the deposition of P.W. 6, it appears that the appellants had taken away the deceased during the night hours and thereafter, he was found dead. P. Ws. 1 and 2 though have turned hostile, but, some facts which they have narrated in their examination -in -chief, have provided enough corroboration to the deposition of P.W. 6 and looking to the medical evidence of P.W. 3, it appears that there is also corroboration to the deposition of P.W. 6 and thus, no error has been committed by the trial court in convicting the appellants -accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.;