SUKRA ORAON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE appellant Sukra Oraon stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life, by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1995.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the morning of 8.8.1990, deceased Madhu Orain was going to the field of Tairas Tigga for the purpose of plantation of paddy. According to informant P.W.2, he along with P.W.1 were working in the Bari when they saw the appellant having rushed after the informant's mother with a tangi in his hand. It is Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India further asserted that the appellant alleging that the deceased was a Dian, assaulted her with Bhujali in his hand causing injuries on her neck. The deceased fell down on the village road and died. The informant along with other villagers chased the appellant who managed the run away. The incident was seen by villagers working in the fields. The reason behind this assault was that the appellant had suspected that the deceased performed witchcraft resulting in illness of his children as well as animals.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned trial court having relied upon interested and related witnesses committed a mistake of fact and law. Mr. R.S. Majumdar, and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant, vehemently argued that the trial court having relied upon on ocular evidence alone found and held the appellant guilty under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the post -mortem report does not support the story of the prosecution case. According to them, the doctor did not find undigested food in the stomach of the deceased. Therefore, a reasonable doubt has been created regarding the time of occurrence, manner of assault and improbability of the witnesses having seen the occurrence. It is also contended that P.W.1 and P.W.2 had no occasion to see the assault because they were working in their Bari when the incident took place. Our attention was drawn towards the improbability that it the incident was seen by P.W.1 and P.W.2 why they did not intervene during the assault. It is also submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for last seventeen years.