PAULUS TOPNO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Simdega dated 23rd August, 2002 in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2000 whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment and against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Simdega, present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused.

(2.) We have heard the learned amicus curiae appointed by this Court on behalf of the appellant, who has mainly submitted that the Trial Court has not appreciated the omissions, contradictions and improvements in the case by the prosecution witnesses and therefore the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Simdega deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Learned amicus curiae submitted that the alleged eye-witnesses P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 are, in fact, not the eye-witnesses of the incident in question. There are lot of contradictions in their depositions. It is also submitted by the Counsel for the appellant-accused that the weapon used by the appellant-accused as per the allegations of these P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is an axe, one injury was caused by sharp edged weapon whereas other two injuries have been caused as per these two witnesses by hard and blunt side of the said weapon, whereas, as per the medical evidence all the three injuries have been caused by the sharp cutting side of the weapon. Thus, there are contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 with regard to medical evidence. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and hence the judgment and order of conviction and sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside. Moreover, both the witnesses have narrated that the injuries have been caused on head of the deceased, whereas the medical evidence reveals that one injury was on the upper side of the neck whereas two were on the right side of the neck and therefore also there is a contradiction in the ocular evidence and the medical evidence and therefore also the judgment and order of conviction and sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside.