JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. P. K. Deomani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2015 (sentence passed on 25.08.2015) passed by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 104 of 2011, arising out of Jadugora P.S. Case No.26 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No.247 of 2010, whereby and wherein, the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila held the appellant, Silai Karma, guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing murder of the deceased Bukai Hansda and thereby, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of six months.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Maki Hansda, alleging therein that on 06.06.2010 at about 07:30 A.M., her daughter Durgi Hansda told her that the appellant Silai Karma had murdered her husband, namely, Bukai Hansda, in the verandah of her school. She rushed to the place of occurrence and saw Silai Karma standing there with a blood stained axe. Dead body of her husband was lying on the ground, she saw injuries on his neck and jaw. Silai Karma told her that he had murdered her husband.

4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance, Sri G. K. Roy, learned A.C.J.M., Ghatsila committed the case to the Court of Sessions, as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

5. Charge was framed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The content of the charge was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.

7. Durgi Hansda (P.W.1), is the daughter of the informant. She has supported the prosecution case.

Birsai Hansda (P.W.2), has proved his signature on the arrest memo, which is Ext.-1. He has also proved in signature on the seizure list relating to recovery of axe which is Ext.-2. He has further proved his signature on the inquest report which is Ext.-3. In his cross-examinations, he has stated that he cannot say as to what weapon was used in committing the murder of the deceased.

Somai Hansda (P.W.3), is the hearsay witness, he has proved the seizure list relating to recovery of the axe, purpotedly said to be murder weapon, which has been marked as Ext.-2/1. In his cross-examination he has stated that he is not an eye witness to the occurrence.

Makilal Bari (P.W.4), is also not an eye witness to the occurrence.

Sukram Karma (P.W.5), has stated that occurrence took place in the verandah of the school, in his cross-examination, he has stated that he is not an eye witness to the occurrence.

Kandey Hansda (P.W.6), has stated that he went to the place of occurrence at about 08:00 A.M., several persons had gathered there.

Maki Hansda (P.W.7), is the informant herself, she has supported her case as alleged in the fardbeyan.

Manoj Kumar Gupta (P.W.8), is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan, which is Ext.-4. He has also proved the formal F.I.R., and the inquest report, which are Ext.-5 and Ext.-3/2 respectively. He has further proved the seizure lists relating to recovery of axe and blood stained mud which are Ext.-2/2 and Ext.7 respectively. At para-3, he has given description of the place of occurrence which is verandah of New Primary School. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not sent blood stained murder weapon to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination.

Dr. Ramchander Soren (P.W.-9) h