RATIA URAON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.9.1997 and 3.10.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in S.T. No. 790 of 1993 by which the appellant No. 1 Ratia Uraon has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No. 2 Bandhu Uraon has been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and both the appellants sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that PW 1, the informant has left his house for pole factory in early morning at 5 a.m. on 2.6.1990. However, at about 6.30 a.m. his wife PW 2 arrived at the pole factory with lunch to inform him that she saw some villagers planning something against his father who has gone to the field to tend bullocks. The informant anticipating danger came out of the pole factory to see that the appellants alongwith seven others were going towards the place of occurrence, field of Bhojna Muriari. The informant having seen this, rushed towards the place of occurrence. In the meantime the appellants started assaulting his father. Further stated he saw appellant Ratia cutting the neck of his father with garasa while the appellant Bandhu was holding him. PWs 1 and 2 thereafter rushed towards the field crying but the appellants (led away. In the meantime on their alarms other witnesses PWs 3, 4, 5, 7, family members of the deceased arrived who also saw the appellants fleeing from the place of. occurrence. According to the informant this occurrence look place because of land dispute going on between the deceased and appellant Ratia and Bandhu.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred by both the appellants on the ground that the learned trial Court has committed a mistake by relying upon the informant and PW 7 who could not prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. It was asserted that in absence of any eye witness worth credit, the prosecution case should have been disbelieved. According to the appellants, there is material contradictions in the evidence of PW 1, 5, 7 on the point of assault as well as time of occurrence, and in absence of the I.O. the defence has been prejudiced. The learned amicus curiae Sri P.A.S. Pati further submitted that the FIR was lodged immediately after the occurrence though the police station was situated at a distance of 32 k.m. It was further pointed out that the FIR was sent to the Court of CJM after two days. According to learned amicus curiae, the I.O. has not investigated the case properly and submitted the charge -sheet in haste without having got the blood collected from the place of occurrence and examined by forensic experts. According to Sri Pati, statement of PW 1 in absence of any positive corroboration did not deserve to be relied.