WILLIUM KIR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.06.2008 and 20.06.2008 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof further S. 1 for two months. The brief facts of the case as stated in the fardbeyan of the informant-Etwa Manjhi (PW-1) recorded on 07.11.2005 at about 9.00 am is that on 05.11.2005, his wife Gomati Manjhiyain (PW-3) alongwith Beronica Kiro (deceased) had gone to harvest paddy crops. At about 3 pm, Gomati Manjhiyain and Beronica Kiro were sitting in the field. In the meantime, the husband of the deceased namely, Willium Kiro (appellant) came there holding a Tangi and assaulted three-four times on the head of his wife Beronica Kiro with the intention to kill her and consequently, she became unconscious. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital. On 06.11.2005, she was referred to I.G.H. Hospital Rourkela for better treatment.

(2.) On the basis of the fardbeyan, an F.I.R being Jaldega (Bansjore O.P.) P.S Case No. 44 of 2005 was registered on 07.11.2005 under Sections 324, 326 and 307 IPC. However, in course of treatment, Beronica Kiro died on 08.11.2005 at I.G.H. Hospital, Rourkela and thus, Section 302 IPC was added, vide order dated 11.11.2005. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted and the charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and tried accordingly.

(3.) Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment submits that there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. In present case, the occurrence took place on 05.11.2005 at about 3.00 pm, however, the F.I.R was lodged on 07.11.2005 at about 9.00 am and as such, there is inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R which is a vital lapse on the part of prosecution. It is further submitted that there are discrepancy and variance in the number of injuries mentioned in the injury report vis--vis the post-mortem report. Though in the injury report, the doctor found altogether four incised wounds and one bruise, however, as per the post-mortem report, the doctor found only three incised wounds. The learned trial court committed an error in convicting the appellant on the basis of the testimony of the sole eye-witness i.e., PW-3. The learned trial court also did not appreciate that the informant i.e., the husband of PW-3 had previous enmity with the appellant and as such, he was falsely implicated in the present case and the PW-3 out of her personal vengeance, claiming herself to be the eye-witness to the occurrence, has implicated the appellant as the assailant of the deceased.