LEDWA ORAON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.12.1999 passed by the learned 1st Additional Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 100 of 1997 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in short is that Jiwanti Devi (PW 2) wife of Bhukhla Oraon (the deceased) gave fardbeyan at her house on 6.6.1996 at about 4.15 p.m. to the police officer to the effect that at the preceding night when she was sleeping with her husband Bhukhla Oraon in the verandah, at about 3 a.m. four persons including the appellant came into her house. One person flashed torch over them on which they woke up and saw the appellant and three others. The appellant had torch in one hand and gun in other and he fired from his gun from a very close distance in front of the neck of her husband Bhukhla Oraon due to which he fell down and died immediately. The accused persons then fled away. Except the appellant, the other accused had no arms in their hands. On hulla the villagers came to her house. It is alleged in the FIR that there was land dispute between the parties. Charge -sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and charges were framed under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In defence they totally denied the occurrence and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case. It may be noted here that the other accused persons have been acquitted and only the appellant has been convicted.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been implicated in this case falsely only with a view to grab his land; that the identification of the appellant, allegedly having torch in his hand, is not possible; there are contradictions between inquest and the post -mortem report; there are contradictions in the version of the informant in the fardbeyan and in the evidence of PW 2; non -examination of the Investigating Officer has prejudiced the case of the appellant in his defence and there are contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses.