BUDHDEO PURTY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence both dated 27th May, 2000 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1994, whereby, the present appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for causing murder of Budhni Devi.

(2.) IF the case of the prosecution is unfolded, the relevant facts are as under: It is the case of the prosecution that the whole incident had taken place on 3rd December, 1993 at 4.00 p.m. when Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3) and the deceased - Budhni Devi were returning from Village -Haldia at footpath of Village Heperburu and at that time, the appellant -accused came suddenly with a stick and caused injury to the deceased - Budhni Devi. When the informant - Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3) tried to save the life of the deceased, she was again caused injury by stick and thereafter Tilotma Devi (P.W.

(3.) WE have heard learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State, who has submitted that the whole case of the prosecution is based upon the deposition of the injured eye witness i.e. Tilotma Devi -P.W. 3 (the informant). The appellantaccused is named in the First Information Report. P.W. 3 has seen the whole offence, committed by the appellant -accused. When P.W. 3 and the deceased were returning from Village Haldia at a footpath of Village Heperburu, assault was committed by the appellant -accused on the deceased as well as on the informant. The informant has also sustained head injury and there was bleeding also. Initially, the deceased was given a stick blow, as a result of which, she fell down and the appellant -accused thereafter caused injuries on her head by means of stone. There was profuse bleeding at the scene of offence and the stick and stone both were having blood stains and were lying near the dead -body. The injured eye witness (P.W. 3) shouted for rescue but no -body came at the scene of offence. Thereafter, she ran towards the village at the house of one Nilambar Purty (P.W. 4) who came at the scene of offence with his servants (P.W. 11 and P.W. 12) who are also the villagers. Looking to the deposition of all these prosecution witnesses, it appears that they have supported the deposition of P.W. 3. Thus, the case of the prosecution is based upon the deposition given by the injured eye witness (P.W. 3), supported by the depositions of P.W. 4, P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12, who are the villagers, who had rushed immediately at the scene of offence. There is also enough corroboration to the depositions by the medial evidence of Dr. Sheo Shankar Birua (P.W. 13), who has carried out the post mortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased. As per the medical evidence, cause of death of the deceased is head injury and the injury is capable of being caused by stone. It is also submitted by the A.P.P. that when the whole case is based upon the deposition given by the eye witness, which is getting enough corroboration by the depositions given by other witnesses as well as by the medical evidence, even if the motive is unable to be established by the prosecution, it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Motive was within the knowledge of the accused. The informant (P.W. 3) has no animosity with the appellant -accused, though this witness is also the villager of Village -Heperburu. In these circumstances, even if motive is not proved by the prosecution, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the appellant -accused has committed murder of the deceased - Budhni Devi and, thus, no error has been committed by the trial court in appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses on record and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, by exercising the appellate powers.