BANESHWAR MANJHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th February, 1998 and 27th February, 1998 respectively, passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 221 of 1993, whereby, the present appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment and for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for one year rigorous imprisonment and both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) It is a case of the prosecution that on 20th May, 1993, the informantP.W.5 gave fardbeyan to police that his wifeP.W.1, namely, Renuka came at the house and informed him that Alomoni Majhian as well as Jelapi Majhian have been assaulted by the present appellant. He immediately rushed nearby the house, where, the incident has taken place, where, he saw Alomoni Majhian was unconscious and Jelapi Majhian (P.W.4) was injured. It is also stated in the fardbeyan that the whole incident has taken place because the appellant, who is soninlaw of deceasedAlomoni Majhian, had mortgaged all the articles, which she had given to him at the time of marriage. The assault has taken place in the house with a weapon Kudal. Upon recording of the fardbeyan, First Information Report was lodged. The case was investigated and chargesheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court by Sessions Trial No. 221 of 1993 and upon recording the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.10 and upon appreciating these evidences, which includes the deposition of injured eye witness and the medical evidence, the learned trial court has convicted the present appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment as well as for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for one year rigorous imprisonment and both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, who has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The so called eye witnesses are not the eye witnesses, at all. There are major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence and ocular evidence are in contradiction with each other. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and, hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside.