1. This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th February, 2009 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenught in connection with S.T. Case No.360 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No.707 of 2004, arising out of Nawadih P.S. Case No.104 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for life, but no fine has been imposed considering detention of the petitioner in jail custody.

2. The facts appearing from the fist information report is that on 10th September, 2004, at about 10:00 p.m., the appellant-Bhunwa Ghasi armed with an axe came to the house of the informant and caused assault to her husband-Karu Ghansi on his head, while he was sleeping in front of his house. Karu Ghansi died at the spot after receiving injury. The appellant after causing injury to Karu Ghansi uttered that he had not given proper share in maize crop and that is why he has killed him. Thereafter, the appellant fled away. The informant raised alarm, which attracted nearby people, who assembled. On the next day i.e. on 11th September, 2011, the statement of informant-Gujari Devi was recorded and a case, being Tenughat, Nawadih P.S. Case No. 104 of 2004 dated 11th September, 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 707 of 2004, under Section 302 IPC, against sole appellant, was registered.

3. The police after due investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and, accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session and registered as S.T. Case No. 360 of 2004.

Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed on 24th January, 2005 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses and proved the documents like postmortem report, inquest report, seizure list etc.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, placing reliance on the evidence and documents, available on record, held the appellant guilty and inflicted sentence, as indicated above.

4. This criminal appeal has been preferred from jail by the appellant and he has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that vital contradictions are appearing in the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. Other witnesses, like P.Ws.3, 5, 6 and 7, are hearsay. Shakhi Mahto-P.W.8 has turned hostile. The Investigating Officer has not discharged his obligation properly. No fair investigation has been done by the Investigating Officer to find out the truth.

It is submitted that the informant in the first information report has stated that she along with her daughters was sleeping, but she had given a go by to the said statement while examined in Court. In her deposition she says that she was sitting near a cot on which her husband was sleeping. Her daughters were cooking meal inside the house. P.W.2-Devanti Kumari did not corroborate the version of P.W.1. In her cross-examination, in Para-3, she says that she was sleeping at the time of occurrence and she could learn about the incident after her mother made her woke up and informed about the occurrence. That goes to show that P.W.2 is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.

Shambhu Ghansi-P.W.3 is hearsay witness, who had reached to the place of occurrence on Halla. He has stated that he had seen the appellant fleeing from the place having an axe in his hand, but in cross-examination he says that his eye sight is weak and he is hard of hearing. He has also admitted that it was a dark night and, therefore, it was not possible for him to see the appellant fleeing from the place and that too with an axe in his hand. Since the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not reliable, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not liable to be upheld. No proper investigation has been done and the Investigating Officer-P.W.9, who was all along negligent in conducting investigation, did not bot