FAGU SOREN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of judgment dated 06.02.2004 passed by learned. Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Dhanbad convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life. The prosecution case, in short, is that PW-4 Raju Hansda, son of the deceased, lodged a fardbeyan to the effect that on 09.04.2001 at about 9.30 a.m. his younger brother Mangal Hansda, PW-7, came and told him that his father was assaulted by the appellant by means of iron katar causing death to his father. On this information the informant with other family members went to the place of occurrence and saw that Lakhiram was lying dead with bleeding injuries on the neck. At the place of occurrence PW-1 Gopal Karmkar and PW-2 Manbodh Karmkar were standing who told the informant that while they were gossiping with the deceased, the appellant came and assaulted on his neck by means of katar due to which father of the informant died at the spot. It is further alleged that while the informant, with his family members, was going to the place of occurrence, they saw the appellant fleeing away towards forest having katar in his hand. The reason of the occurrence was that the appellant had suspicion that the deceased had illicit relation with the wife of the appellant for which a panchayati was also held but the suspicion/allegation of the appellant was not found to be true. It is therefore, alleged that due to this reason the appellant murdered father of the informant.

(2.) Learned Counsel Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds whereas Learned Counsel for the State supported it.

(3.) In our opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. PW-1 and 2, who are said to be the eye-witnesses as per the F.I.R., have turned hostile. PW-3, PW-4 (informant) and PW-5 are hearsay witnesses. PW-6 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem. PWs 8 and 9 are the Investigating Officers. PW-7 is a child witness aged about 7 years, who according to the F.I.R., informed PW-4 about the alleged occurrence. He has said that he, while sitting on the tree, saw that the appellant assaulted his father by iron katar on his neck due to which he died, but this witness was not examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation. For the first time in Court he said that he had seen the occurrence. Thus, in our opinion, only on the basis of the evidence of PW-7, a child witness, it would not be proper to hold the order of conviction to the appellant. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 06.02.2004 is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.