SUNI RAM HEMBRAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.12.2006 and 13.12.2006 respectively, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 165 of 2005 and 46 of 2005, whereby, this appellant has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Case of the prosecution is that on 27.02.2005 at 1.30 hrs (i.e. 1.30 A.M.) the informant Rutuj Hembram informed, police that on 26.02.2005 in the evening when ox of informant did not return from the field to his house, then his elder brother Churka Hembram (deceased) went out in search of ox in the village. When Churka Hembram reached in front the house of Suni Ram Hembram (accused) while searching his ox, then Suni Ram Hembram (accused) asked Churka Hebram that why have you come here. Upon this he replied that he is searching his ox and has not come to commit theft of cattles of Suni Ram Hembram. In the meantime Suni Ram Hembram shot an arrow at Churka Hembram. As a result, he sustained injury in his chest, so, he raised alarm. Thereafter the informant and other villagers reached there. It was further alleged by the informant that Suni Ram Hembram had again shot arrow at him in his chest. Thereafter informant brother Churka Hembram fell down on the ground then accused Suni Ram Hembram and his wife brought the dead body in the veranda of their house. In the meantime villagers assembled at the place of occurrence and they found that Churka Hembram died after sustaining bleeding injuries in his chest by bow and arrow. Thereafter Suni Ram Hembram tried to flee away from there but the villagers caught him and tied him with rope.

(3.) It is submitted by the amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is also submitted by the amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant that so-called witness PW-2, who is the only eye-witness, has, in fact, seen the occurrence at all. It is submitted that PW-2 has never stated in his deposition that he has seen the appellant causing injuries upon the body of the deceased when he was returning from Hatia. Looking to the first sentence of this prosecution witness, he has stated that he returned at his home by 6 O'clock and then he stated that deceased had gone in search of his ox. How he can presume and who informed him that deceased was searching of his ox. This is nothing, but, tutored witness. Once he has reached at his home and from home this witness has presumed that the appellant was causing injuries by bow and arrow. In cross-examination, this PW-2 has stated in paragraph-2 that before evening he has reached at his home where incident has taken place after setting of the Sun. It is further submitted that PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 are the hearsay witnesses. So far as PW-5 is concerned, she is the wife of the deceased. She has never stated in her examination-in-chief that she has seen the occurrence. On the contrary, looking to cross-examination of PW-5, in paragraph-2, she has stated that when she reached at the place of occurrence, her husband has fallen down and has expired. Thus, PW-5 is also an eye-witness at all. It is further submitted that, in fact, this appellant and his wife, both, were seriously injured. There are several injuries upon the appellant and his wife. PW-6 Dr. Narendra Kumar has examined the appellant as well as the wife of this appellant. Injuries upon the body of this appellant as well as upon the body of his wife have been proved. These injuries have been explained by the prosecution at all.