SHIV SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has been found guilty for committing the murder of the deceased Mangru Oraon and, thereby, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life by the 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) in Sessions Trial No. 367 of 1995 by judgment dated 09/01/1997. This impugned Judgment of the Trial Court is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts, leading to the present appeal, are that one Matias Khalkho (PW -4) in his fardbeyan lodged on 03/01/1995 at 5.30 A.M., alleged that on 02/01/1995 at about 4 p.m. he was in his house, at that time he heard 'hulla' of village children that Mangru Oraon was being assaulted by Shiv Singh (the appellant) by means of Sword. At this he came out and saw that the appellant Shiv Singh having a sword in his hand was assaulting Mangru Oraon with the said weapon. By the time he alongwith other villagers reached at the place of occurrence, Shiv Singh fled away from there after committing the murder of Mangru Oraon. The informant alleged that the appellant caused injuries on the neck, face and eyes of Mangru Oraon by means of a sword mercilessly due to which Mangru died at the spot. He further alleged that in the house of the deceased only small children were present and the wife of the deceased namely Josefin Lakra had gone out. The occurrence said to have been witnesses by the village children and others.

(3.) IN course of trial altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of six prosecution witnesses, PWs -2, 3 and 4 are the eye -witnesses to the occurrence. PW -2 is Charwa Oraon, whereas PWs -3 and 4 namely Punai Oraon and Matias Khalkho are the sons of PW -2 Charwa Oraon. PW -1 Josefin Lakra is the widow of the deceased Mangru Oraon and she is a hear say witness. PW -5 is Dr. Vijay Kumar Prasad, who did Post Mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, whereas PW -6 is Nesar Ansari, a formal witness, who proved Ext. -4, i.e. the formal FIR. The Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution.