AMARNATH MAHLI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the original accused No. 1 of Sessions Trial Case No. 625 of 1994, namely, Amarnath Mahli, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23rd January, 2004 and 24th January, 2004 respectively, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Lohardaga, in Sessions Trial Case No. 625 of 1994, arising out of Senha P.S. Case No. 14 of 1994, whereby, the sole appellant, namely, Amarnath Mahli, has been convicted mainly for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for causing murder of one Sukra Oraon and has also been punished for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. However, both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) If the case of the prosecution is unfolded, the facts are as under:

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no eye witness of the incident and the case of the prosecution is based upon "last seen together" theory. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW 1 in paragraph No. 3 of her deposition has stated that when she had gone in search of her husband-Sukra Oraon, during night hours of 24th April, 1994 this appellant was found at his residence. Similarly other prosecution witnesses have also stated that this appellant was at his house, during the night hours of 24th April, 1994. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that during night hours murder has taken place whereas, as per paragraph No. 3 of the deposition given by PW 1, this appellant as well as the deceased were lastly, seen separately instead of together Similarly, it is submitted by the learned, counsel for the appellant that as per paragraph No. 7 of the deposition of PW 13, who is informant of this case and brother of the deceased, he has also not seen this appellant in the company of the deceased. Thus several witnesses have stated that this appellant and the deceased were not together during night hours. Moreover, it is the case of the prosecution through the informant-PW 13, PW 1 and PW 8 that the murder has taken place during night hours of 24th April, 1994 and during the evening hours of 24th April, 1994 this appellant and the deceased-Sukra Oraon were together, but, looking to the medical evidence, given by PW 5-Dr. Sunil Minz, who has carried out post-mortem of the body of the deceased on 25th April, 1994 at 4.30 pm, as also the post-mortem report (Ext. 1), the time of murder is stated to be 30-34 hours prior to post-mortem examination. Thus, if this time is matched with the incident, then the murder must have taken place on 24th April, 1994 at about 10.30 a.m. All the prosecution witnesses have narrated the story that during evening hours of 24th April, 1994 this appellant and the deceased were lastly seen together whereas as per medical evidence the murder had already taken place much before the evening of 24th April, 1994 i.e. at about 10.30 a.m. of 24th April, 1994. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a great contradiction in the medical evidence and the depositions of other prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and, hence, also the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Lohardaga, in Sessions Trial Case No. 625 of 1994 deserves to be quashed and set aside.