LUKNA SINKU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant Lukna Sinku has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 3rd February, 1996 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that the informant Pelong Kui was returning from her parents house, on 12.9.1994 to her matrimonial house situated in village Iligara, P.S. Hat Gamaria in the evening when she found cloths of her husband was lying by the side of the village Road. Further stated when she was picking it up, P.W. 7 Perki Kui informed her that the appellant Lukna Sinku has killed her husband with Farsa due to quarrel between the children of both appellant and the deceased. The informant reached at the place of occurrence to find that her husband was lying dead with Farsa injuries. She raised alarm on which villagers assembled and police was informed.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the appellant was innocent and the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubts the charge against him. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri Sarkhel asserted that the appellant was wrongly convicted on the basis of contradictory statements of witnesses. He also submitted that all the witnesses examined before the learned trial court were interested and in absence of any eye -witness, conviction is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that there are material contradictions on record in the evidence of informant and eye -witness. It is also pointed out that the actual time of occurrence was not asserted by any of the witnesses neither the genesis of the occurrence, quarrel between the children have been proved. The learned counsel further pointed out that in absence of forensic report regarding the blood stained soil and Farsa, the prosecution case becomes doubtful particularly in absence of the I.O. The learned counsel further pointed out that even if the conviction of the appellant is upheld, the offence committed by him is squarely covered under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore the sentence may be modified.