LALA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is arising out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated l4th/17th January, 2000 passed by the IInd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1998 whereby, the present appellant -accused has been convicted for the offence, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) IT is a case of prosecution that on 18th May, 1997 at about evening hours the incident took place. This was seen by the informant (PW 2), who was coming to the house of the deceased namely Suresh Singh to meet and to give gift to the daughter of his brother. who was recently married as he could not give the gift at the relevant time. When he came nearby the house of one Dudhnath Manjhi, he heard the cries of ladies and children and he saw that the accused was assaulting his brother Suresh Singh. He was giving kick and fist blows to the deceased. When the informant PW 2 tried to save his brother the accused took out a dagger and threatened him and gave one dagger blow on the eyes and head of his brother Suresh Singh, who then fell down and thereafter the accused Lala Singh with the help of lungi of the deceased throttled him and Suresh Singh expired because of these injuries. Thereafter, the police came, fard beyan of PW 2 was recorded after lodging First Information Report by PW 2, investigation was carried out, statements of several eye -witnesses were recorded, who are referred by PW 2 in the F.I.R. charge -sheet was filed and the case was referred to Sessions Court and Sessions Trial No. 211 - of 1998 was instituted against the appellant -accused and on the basis of the evidence on record of several eye -witnesses and other evidences on record, the appellant -accused has been convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Suresh Singh and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) IT is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant -accused that the so called eye -witnesses are relatives or friends of the deceased. Moreover, not a single eye -witness has tried to save the life of the deceased. The conduct of the eye -witnesses is unnatural and therefore, they are not trustworthy eye -witnesses.