D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE present appeal is arising out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence both, dated 16th March, 1999 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 378 of 1993 whereby, the appellant -accused has been convicted for the offence, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, for committing murder of Madhu Boipai -father -in -law of the informant, who is P.W. 6.
(2.) IF the prosecution case is unfolded, the facts of the case are as under : It is the case of the prosecution that on 16th September, 1993 at about sun set, when the informant -Roibari Kui (P.W. 6) was having some quarrel with her father - in -law, who is Madhu Boipai about cooking of food, the appellant -accused came at their house and demanded Handia (rice beer). When P.W. 6 had given rice beer to the appellant, it was opposed by Madhu Boipai and ultimately, the appellant -accused assaulted upon Madhu Boipai by lathi and thereafter, by arrow, on 16th September, 1993 at evening hours. Thereafter, Madhu Boipai expired on 17th September, 1993 at about 4.00 a.m. P. W. 6 -Roibari Kui never informed anybody right from 16th September, 1993 onwards till 17th September, 1993 and on 18th September, 1993, police came to know, from rumours, that there is a murder of one person and then came to the village -Latar Kundrujor and then, she informed the police on 18th September, 1983 at about 4.30 p. m. about the whole incident to the police and her fard beyan was recorded as Exhibit -2 and thus, the FIR was lodged, investigation was carried out, statement of witnesses was recorded, charge -sheet was filed and a sessions trial No. 378 of 1993 was instituted against the appellant -accused. Upon recording of the evidences and appreciating the same, the appellant -accused has been convicted for the offence for committing murder of Madhu Boipai and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant -accused, who has submitted that the alleged eye -witness (P.W. 6) is not at all an eye -witness of the incident. There are several omissions, contradictions and improvements in her disposition and P.W.6, therefore, is not a reliable and is untrustworthy witness. 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. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant -accused that though incident has taken place on 16th September, 1993 at evening hours and FIR was lodged on 18th September, 1993 at about 4.30 p.m., the so called eye -witness P.W. 6 Roibari Kui has never informed anybody in the village, though there were several houses nearby the house of the deceased. The strange behaviour of the sole eye -witness requires much more scrutiny of her evidence, and her deposition is not getting corroboration from the depositions of P.W. 4 nor from P.W.3, who is medical evidence. There is no other eye -witness of the incident. It is also submitted by the learned counsellor the appellant -accused that the alleged seizer of arrow was found from footpath of the village, which has brought no legal value or connecting the accused with an offence of the murder. Alleged recovery of the blood stained shirt is also not proved, beyond reasonable doubt, by the prosecution. No chemical examination report has been brought on record by the prosecution. Alleged seizer is not even referred in the case diary, nor the same has been presented before the trial Court. Incident has taken place on 16th September, 1993 and it is not possible that the accused is wearing the same shirt having blood stained upto 18th September, 1993. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant -accused that the deposition of P.W. 3 - Dr.Jawahar Khan, reveals that death has taken place due to shock and haemorrhage and asphyxia, due to strangulation and there is no allegation by P.W. 6, so far as strangulation is concerned. Thus, a major injury has remained unexplained. Thus, ocular evidence is not in consonance with the medical evidence. The sole eye -witness is also silent for two days. Nobody was informed by the eye -witness. Seizer list or Panchnama is not proved, beyond reasonable doubt, by the prosecution and though other independent witnesses were residing in the nearby vicinity, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. 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 Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, who has submitted that the whole case of the prosecution is based upon an eye -witness P.W. 6 -Roibari Kui. Looking to her deposition, there is no omissions, contradictions or improvements, though she has given disposition, approximately after five years. There is enough corroboration of her deposition by the medical evidence given by P.W. 3, who has carried out post -mortem of the deceased. Looking to the nature of the injury, there are injuries by arrow and lathi Thus, the deposition of P. W. 6 is getting corroboration by the deposition of P.W.6. Moreover, looking to the deposition of P. W.7, who is an Investigating Officer, blood stained shirt and arrow have also been recovered, during course of the investigation and there is corroboration of the deposition given by P.W. 4, who is 'Munda' of the village, to the deposition of the eye -witness. The distance of the scene of the offence and the distance of the police station is forty kilometers and it. cannot be said that there is unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR. There is an inimical terms between the eye - witness and the deceased arid therefore, there is no reason to eye -witness to give false evidence against the appellant -accused. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the trial Court. Hence, this Court may not interfere with the order of conviction and sentence, passed by the trial Court and the appeal may kindly be dismissed.;