- (1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal from Jail challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court vide Judgment dated 28.01.2003 is Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1999 whereby, he has been found guilty for committing the murder of Solma Soren by stabbing into her abdomen by means of 'Chura' and thereby has been convicted for committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life.
(2.) THE prosecution story in short is that the informant Churka Soren (not examined since deceased), father of the deceased Solma Soren (deceased), gave a Fardbayan on 28.04.1999 (Wednesday) stating therein that his daughter Solma Soren, aged about 20 years, who was married two years ago, was not willing to live in her in-laws place and hence, after one year of her marriage, she returned to her father's house and started living there. He further stated that since last 8 - 10 months, she got intimacy with Sushil Hembram (appellant). Although they did not marry but they were living as husband and wife as per Santhal customs. Sushil Hembram used to visit the house of the informant and used to stay with Solma Soren as her husband. On 27.04.1999 (Tuesday), at about 6:00 P.M., Sushil Hembram (appellant) came to the house of the informant and stayed there in the night. It is said that after dinner in the night, all the family members went to sleep. At about 3:00 A.M. in the night, hearing the cry of Solma Soren, the informant and other family members woke up and then saw that Solma Soren was stabbed in her abdomen. On being asked, she told them that Sushil Hembram (appellant) stabbed her after some quarrel, when she did not agree to go to his village Lakra Pahari with him. Solma Soren was brought to the Sadar Hospital, Dumka where she was declared dead by the Doctor. On the Fard Bayan of the informant, F.I.R. was registered and the Police took up the investigation. On completion of investigation, the chargesheet was submitted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, on the basis of which cognizance was taken, and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the charge was framed to which he denied and thereafter, he was put on trial.
(3.) IN order to establish the charges, altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. As it appears that there is no witness to the actual assault said to have been made by the appellant.;