LAL MURLI TIU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the appellant accused against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence both dated 26th June, 2000, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1996, whereby, the appellant -accused had been convicted for the offence, punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) IF the prosecution case is unfolded, the facts of the case are as under : It is the case of the prosecution that on 7th September, 1993 at about 5.00 p.m. Sukumati Kui (deceased) and gone in search of duck and when the informant -Maraki Tiu (PW 2) returned to his house along with sheep, he could not see his wife (Sukumati Kui -deceased) at his residence. PW 2 started searching his wife, namely, Sukumati Kui, and while he was searching his wife, he saw in a bush of the nearby jungle that appellant -accused and three others were causing injuries to his wife. He shouted for help and for rescue of his wife, but the accused persons ran after him (PW 2) also. He saw that the appellant - accused and other three accused persons were beating his wife. Thereafter, he immediately contacted Singrai Tiu PW 4 (Munda of Dopa village) and when they came at the place of occurrence, the accused had ran away with the dead body of the deceased and the dead body of the deceased could not be found out immediately. Thereafter, First Information Report was lodged on 8th September, 1993 at about 16.30 hours. As the blood trail was going towards the nearby jungle, during the course of investigation, different parts of the body of the deceased could be collected by the Investigating Officer and, thereafter, post -mortem was carried out by Dr. Yogendra Nath (PW 1) on 26th September, 1993. Four injuries were found, which were ante -mortem in nature. Thereafter, upon recording the statement of the witnesses, charge -sheet was filed against the appellant - accused. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1996 and after appreciating the evidence on record, the present appellant -accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 to the read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, as stated hereinabove, for committing murder of Sukumati Kui. Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant -accused.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant -accused, who has submitted that the deposition of PW 2, who is husband of the deceased Sukumati Kui, is full of omissions, contradictions and exaggerations and is not getting any corroboration by the depositions of other prosecution witnesses. Thus, no reliance can be placed upon the deposition of PW 2. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW 2 has not tried to save the life of the deceased. There is no other independent eye -witness to the whole incident. There are other co -accused and as per the deposition of PW 2, only one accused was carrying the weapon and, therefore, the prosecution has not proved, beyond reasonable doubts, that the murder of Sukumati Kui was committed by the appellant -accused. The whole incident has taken place behind the bush. PW 2 has narrated the whole incident on his own imagination. In fact, during evening hours, there cannot be even proper light behind the bush. The time of occurrence, place of occurrence, the role, played by the appellant -accused and the weapon in the hand of the appellant - accused has not been proved by the prosecution witnesses. The deposition of PW 2 is, thus, full of omissions, contradictions and improvements and, therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the so -called sole eye -witness i.e. PW 2. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and, hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the trial Court, deserve to be quashed and set aside.