LENGA KUDADA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE appellant Lenga Kudada stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 224/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West, Chaiabasa in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1998.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant along with one Deori Chatter was serving sentence in Chaibasa District Jail after having been convicted for offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution case, on 20.12.1987, the appellant along with said Deori Chatter was confined in a Cell Unit where deceased Gulab Chandra Prasad was posted as Warden. The informant (PW 9) Ram Narayan Pandit while taking round of the whole premises at about 2.15 p.m., reached near the Cell in which the appellant was confined. According to him, he called out Gulab Chandra Prasad for getting the report and not getting response, reached at the door of the Cell and inquired from the Deori Chatter about, the warden. According to him, when he was informed by Deori Chatter that the warden was inside the Cell, he went inside to find that deceased Gulab Chandra Prasad was lying inside in injured condition. In the meantime, Deori Chatter attacked him with a stone covered in 'gamchha ', which hit him on his side. In the meantime, the appellant who was trying to create a hole in the wall of the Cell, fell upon him and assaulted him. However, the informant could manage to free and blow whistle, which alarmed the jail inmates. The Jail Authorities assembled and found that the appellant along with Deori Chatter was trying to get a hole in the wall of the Cell. They further removed injured Gulab Chandra Prasad having serious injuries on his head, face and ears for his treatment to Sadar Hospital.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial Court has not considered the improbabilities of the prosecution case. Mr. R.C. Khatri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the entire prosecution version was fabricated and concocted. According to him, there was no eye -witness except PW 9 and even he was not sure who has assaulted the deceased. According to him. PW 9, the eye - witness, has asserted that the stone was being held by dead Deori Chatter, as such, the offence under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code would not be proved against the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to acquittal, as he has been held guilty on circumstantial evidence alone.