SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction under section 302 IPC dated 14.07.2009 and the order of sentence of R.I for life dated 15.07.2009 in Sessions Case No. 186 of 2008 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dumka.
(2.) On the basis of fardbeyan of Gudo Murmu recorded at about 9:45 a.m on 09.05.2008, Raneshwar P.S. Case No. 34 of 2008 was registered under section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant. The informant has stated that on 08.05.2008 at about 5:30 p.m his mother namely, Fulmuni Hembrom went for collecting Toddi with Manjhi Kisku and at about 6:00 p.m he was informed by Sumi Hembrom that the accused namely, Kewta Murmu has assaulted his mother in front of the house of Godai Kisku. The informant thereafter went there and found the dead body of his mother lying beneath the Tar tree. The cause for murder of his mother has been stated by the informant the land dispute with the accused-Kewta Murmu. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under section 302 IPC and cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate. By an order dated 11.11.2008, charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant which he denied and claimed trial. During the trial the prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses; the informant is P.W.9 and the doctor who has conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of Fulmuni Hembrom has been examined as P.W. 1. The witnesses- P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are the inquest witnesses. The other witnesses on their own account are not eye-witness.
(3.) Two witnesses namely, Manjhi Kisku and Patamuni Murmu have been projected by the prosecution as eye-witnesses.;