GOPAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court : The appellant was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of Pedku Singh and also for making an attempt to commit murder of Ravi Singh, the son of the deceased. The trial Court, having found the appellant guilty for the said charges, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated 06.03.2009 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further to undergo R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, is that, on 30.10.2001, the deceasedPedku Singh and his wife Fulmani Devi-P.W.6 were taking their son Ravi Singh-P.W.7 to a doctor for his treatment. When they travelled a distance of about half a kilometer, the informant saw the appellant Gopal Singh, having tangi with him, going ahead of them. He stopped near a tree and when they reached at that spot, the appellant all on a sudden inflicted blow by tangi from behind on the neck of Pedku Singh as a result of which he fell down and then again another blow was given on the neck. Meanwhile, Ravi Singh, the son of the deceased aged about 7 and 1/2 years came to rescue his father but the appellant also gave tangi blow on him as a result of which he also became injured. When alarm was raised villagers came over there but by the time Pedku Singh had died. Thereupon, the informant Fulmani Devi-P.W.6 came to Jaridih police station where she narrated about the incident as has been stated above. At the same time motive of the occurrence was also given by stating that the appellant was suspecting her to be a witch and on account of witchcraft being played by her, son of the appellant had died.

(3.) On the basis of the said fardbeyan, a formal F.I.R was drawn and the case was taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer (not examined). In course of investigation, it does appear that the I.O. having held inquest on the dead body of the deceased prepared an inquest report and then sent the dead body for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Devendra Prasad, Civil Assistant Surgeon, who has also been not examined by the prosecution rather post mortem report has been proved by a formal witness as Ext.2, though the said witness was not acquainted with the doctor still that has been taken into evidence. Admissibility of the postmortem report has been subjected to serious challenge by learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The submission to this aspect would be dealt with later on. However, from the postmortem report, it does appear that the deceased had received the following injuries:-