D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE aforesaid criminal appeal has been preferred, by the appellant -accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.6.2000 and 8,6.2000 respectively passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No 83 of 1998, whereby the appellant -accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment for committing murder of Khobi Devi.
(2.) THE fact of the prosecution case is unfolded hereunder : It is a case of the prosecution that the informant Budhram Singh, P.W. 4 -husband of the deceased has given a written complaint on 1.11.1997 at about 8:30 a.m. to the Officer -in -Charge, Raidih Police Station stating therein that his wife,Khobi Devi while coming to her house along with his daughter Balmai Devi (P.W. 3), when they near the house of Keshwar Singh (appellant -accused), the accused assaulted upon Khobi Devi by sharp cutting instrument, namely, Balua and caused injuries at the back side of neck, over right cheek and neck and she died on the spot. It is also alleged by the informant -P.W. 4 that daughter of the accused had expired on earlier date of the incident and, therefore, he was suspecting the deceased as 'Dain' and, therefore, he has killed her. Date of incident is 31.10.1997 at 6 p.m. Thereafter investigation was carried out, statements of several witnesses were recorded, charge -sheet was filed and -Sessions Trial No. 83 of 1998 was registered against the appellant - accused and upon recording of the evidences and appreciating the same, the trial Court has punished the appellant -accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Khobi Devi and against this order, present appeal has been preferred by the appellant -accused. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who has submitted that no detail has been given in the first information report as to how the assault has been made. In fact, first information report has not been given by P.W.4, as alleged by the prosecution, is not an eye -witness at all. There was neither any eye -witness nor any nearby resident independent witness has been examined. Place of occurrence was not fully established and looking to the depositions of P.Ws. 8 and 9, they have not stated that P.W. 3 has given the name of the assailant. Thus, appellant -accused is innocent and is wrongly roped into the offence; otherwise also, there are lots of omissions, contradictions and improvements by the prosecution witnesses in their depositions. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and hence, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State -A.P.P submitted that whole case of the prosecution is based upon the eye -witness, namely, P.W. 3, immediate is the first information report, appellant -accused is named in the first information report, weapon is also narrated clearly in the first information report, place of occurrence is also pointed out right from the first information report itself. Thus, looking to the deposition of P.W. 3, who was accompanying her mother when assault was committed by the appellant -accused by Balua -sharp cutting instrument, mother of P.W. 3 expired on the spot because of several injuries on the vital part of the body. She immediately rushed at the house where she informed P.W. 4, who is father of P.W. 3 -husband of the deceased and thereafter she also informed P.W. 1 Gyan Shyam Singh immediately, who is mukhlya of village Ramja where the incident has taken place. Thus, looking to the deposition of P.W. 1 also there is enough corroboration to the deposition of eye -witness (P.W. 3).;