SILLA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant Silla Mahto has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.5.1996 and 15.5.1996 respectively passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in S.T. No. 382 of 1985 whereby and whereunder the appellant stand convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for life.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the afternoon of 16.6.1985 the informant Gyatri Kumari was going along with her mother Mangi Devi to local Hat. Further stated on the way to Manahatu Hat. Marsa Mundain wife of late Dudha Munda joined them for Hat. However when they reached near the hat the appellant along with Etwa Munda surrounded Marsa Mundain and asked why she has planted paddy in their field. Further stated they started assaulting the said Marsa Mundain respectively with long and short tangi in their hands on which her mother Mangi Devi raised alarm. Thereafter Etwa Munda and the appellant assaulted her mother also with the arms in their hands resulting severe injury on both the females. P.W. 1 Gyatri raised alarm on which people from the Hat as well as on way chased the assailants. The other assailant chased her brother towards the Hat and in the meantime the appellant fled away leaving his tangi on the place of occurrence. The injury caused on both female resulted in their death.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the conviction of the appellant made on the basis of sole witness P.W. 1 was not warranted. It further mentions that P.W. 1 has contradicted her own statement before the police and during the trial. The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. A.K. Sahani further pointed out that the injuries found on the dead bodies did not tally with the ocular evidence of P.W. 1. According to him P.W. 2 has been tendered while brother of the informant has not been examined without any explanation. Therefore the conviction of the appellant based upon sole evidence of P.W. 1 deserves to be set aside. It is also submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for about 12 years during trial and during the pendency of this appeal.