The prosecution must establish motive and present consistent witness testimonies to prove the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT

B.B. Mangalmurti, J. (CAV) - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22nd April, 2006 and order of sentence dated 25th April, 2006 passed by Shri Awadhesh Nandan, 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 302 of 2002 and have found the appellants guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. The short fact of the case is that on 19.01.2002, informant along with his maternal uncle Anil Oraon of village Sotiyari and Gobra Oraon (Mausa of informant) proceeded from the brick kiln of Gobra Oraon situated in village Adailhatu at 7.00 p.m. for Kathal Toli. On the way, all the three persons took their meals in the Nunu Hotel. After taking meal, Anil Oraon went to his village Sotiyari. The informant Bhakhru Oraon @ Shiv Oraon and Gobra Oraon came to the house of informant at village Kathal Toli at 9.30 p.m. on bicycle. Gobra Oraon left his bicycle and proceeded for his house. In the morning, the informant went to the house of Gobra Oraon at around 7.00 a.m. where he came to know from his maternal aunt that Gobra Oraon did not return to home on previous night. Informant and other persons started searching for him. During search they found the slipper (Hawai Chappal) of Gobra Oraon at the door of co-villager Madhu Oraon and thereafter at the distance of 100 Yards in the north direction, they found the dead body of Gobra Oraon with cut injuries on the face of the body lying in the pool of blood in the Bari of Etwa Oraon. The further case is that Gobra Oraon had illicit relationship with Prabha Devi wife of Madhu Oraon and he used to meet Prabha Devi sparingly causing annoyance to Madhu Oraon and his brother Parya Oraon. The informant believed that Madhu Oraon, Parya Oraon and some unknown persons had murdered Gobra Oraon. Thereafter, police registered Bundu P.S. Case No. 04 of 2002 for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Madhu Oraon, Parya Oraon and others.

After investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid Section was submitted against the appellant Madhu Oraon and Parya Oraon @ Paritosh Oraon. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions and after framing of charge, the prosecution altogether examined six witnesses but the defence has not examined any witness.

The court after consideration of the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution, found that it is not possible to hold that the occurrence took place in a different manner than the one alleged by the prosecution and held Parya Oraon @ Paritosh Oraon and Madhu Oraon guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Gobra Oraon @ Gobardhan Oraon and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the court below has erred in holding that slipper of the deceased was recovered at the door of Madhu Oraon but failed to consider that seized slipper is of general kind of slipper available in market and used by most of the villagers. The Investigating Officer in his evidence stated that a slipper was recovered near the door of Madhu Oraon but P.W.2 Girawala Devi submitted that Parle G biscuit and slipper were recovered near the door of Madhu Oraon. He further submitted that the trial court has not taken into consideration the motive behind the alleged murder which was due to the illicit relationship of deceased with Prabha Devi (wife of Madhu Oraon) as stated in fardbeyan but P.W.2 Girawala Devi (wife of deceased) and informant P.W.5 both stated that the motive behind the murder is land dispute. The trial court has not properly considered the statement of witnesses and has not taken the material contradictions and the provisions of section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have not been complied with. The relevant questions upon which conviction were made were not put before the accused. Lastly, he submitted that