JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction dated 31.03.2006 and order of sentence dated 04.04.2006 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in S.T. No. 186 of 2002, arising out of Tamar P.S. Case No.62 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 334 of 2001 whereby and where under the accused appellant (including one deceased appellant) was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304/34 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years.

2. It appears from the record that there were two appellants namely Karan @ Karno Singh Munda and Lakhan Singh Munda and out of whom appellant No.1 Karan @ Karno Singh Munda has expired in the year 2021. The report called for has been received from the Court of District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti, by which, it appears that the appellant No.1 Karan @ Karno Singh Munda had expired and the death certificate has been given by “Gram Pradhan”, Revenue Village: Dulmi, Panchayat Janumpidi, Tamar, Ranchi and the father Lakhan Singh Munda, who was appellant No.2 in this appeal.

3. In this view of the matter, learned defence counsel Smt. Nivedita Kundu appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that let this appeal be abated with respect to the deceased appellant as no close relative on behalf of him has come forward to continue with this appeal on his behalf.

4. Accordingly, this appeal gets abated with respect to the deceased appellant No.1 Karan @ Karno Singh Munda and let his name be deleted from the cause title of memo of appeal.

5. Now this appeal is heard on behalf of the sole appellant Lakhan Singh Munda.

6. The allegations against the appellant arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of informant PW – 1 Sukru Mundain (Sukru Devi), whose statement was recorded by S.I. Shamim Ahmad Khan, Officer-Incharge of Tamar police station on 13.07.2001 at 16.00 hours at village Dulmi. She stated in the fardbayan that her paddy field was situated at a distance of 100 yards south of village over which she had already grown paddy crops, adjacent to her paddy field, the paddy field of Lakhan Munda is also situated, who had not yet grown paddy crops over his land. Further it has been alleged that Lakhan Singh Munda along with his son Karno Singh Munda started cultivating their paddy field for the purpose of growing paddy crops and her husband had been there to see his land wherein he found that Lakhan and Karno, father & Son, were cutting the embankment of his paddy field which was dissuaded & precluded by her husband, thereupon Lakhan Singh Munda assaulted her husband by Lathi & Karno Singh Munda assaulted by back portion of a spade causing injuries of his person by which her husband fell unconscious, people arrived there and with their help, her husband was brought to her (the informant) house and after some time he died.

7. On the basis of said fardbeyan a case u/s 302/34 IPC was registered at the Tamar P.S. and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under same section and cognizance of the case was taken by the then ACJM, Khunti and case was committed to the court of sessions. Additional Judicial Commissioner Khunti has framed charge on 30.05.2002 under sections 302/34 of IPC. The learned trial court after conducting the trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

8. Heard Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, learned Spl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant-

9. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was erroneous in law as well as on facts and circumstances of this case and learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence that the informant PW – 1 was not at the spot at the time of alleged commission of assault by the appellant as she had not stated in her fardbayan