JAGARNATH MAHARANA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has filed this appeal from jail challenging the judgment dated 23 -8 -1990 of the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in ST No. 68 of 1988 convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment under Sec. 302, IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 23 -9 -1987 at about 10.00 a.m. the appellant killed his wife, Fulo Devi, with Tangi while she was cooking food and also hit with the stick his mother - in - law, Mukta Devi, while she was trying to protect her daughter causing injury to her. The reason for the murder of his wife by the appellant is said to be the quarrel between them. An information in writing of the incident by one Sudhdeo Munda of the same village was given to the police station at about 8.00 p.m., on the basis of which a formal FIR was drawn up. After investigation, charge -sheet under Secs. 302 and 323, IPC was submitted against the appellant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa; who took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) IT is apparent that none of the PWs is an eye - witness of the incident; as none of them has seen the murder of Fulo Devi being committed by the appellant. Even the informant is not an eye - witness. According to the prosecution the only eye - witness was Mukta Devi the mother of the deceased but she was not produced as PW. The trial Court in the impugned judgment has observed that Mukta Devi could not be produced in the Court as prosecution witness because of her illness. But if she was ill she could have been examined on commission. But that was not done. There is also no explanation and reason given by the prosecution for not examining her on commission. Be that as it may the fact remains that according to the prosecution there was only one eyewitness (Mukta Devi) of the incident but she was not produced as PW and all other witnesses who were produced were not eye - witness. Their testimony is purely hearsay being based on the statement of Mukta Devi. Whether what Mukta Devi stated was or was not true could have been tested only on her examination as PW. But as mentioned above she was not produced as witness by the prosecution.