The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellants under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Aparajita Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.06.1995, passed by Sri R. P. Verma, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gumla in connection with Sessions Trial No. 173 of 1989, arising out of Sisai P.S. Case No.42 of 1989, corresponding to G.R. No. 261 of 1989, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gumla, held the appellants guilty of the offence under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Garbhu Oraon, alleging therein that on the intervening night of 21/22.04.1989, he was sleeping in his house, when he heard the cry of alarm of his daughter-in-law. He rushed to the place of occurrence and saw his son Jogi Oraon lying in front of the house of his brother Birsa Oraon. His daughter-in-law, Jhibi Orain, told him that accused Bodhna Oraon, Saru Oraon, Sanicharwa Oraon, Manga Oraon and Marwari Oraon had assaulted him by lathi, thereafter accused Sanicharwa Oraon and Manga Oraon crushed the head of his son Jogi Oraon by big rock due to which he succumbed to his injuries.

4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellants on 03.07.1989. After cognizance, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 22.07.1989, as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

5. Charge was framed against the appellants on 07.02.1990. The contents of the charge were 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. Jhibi Orain (P.W.1) is the eye witness, who had also sustained injuries, has supported the prosecution case.

Jinda Bhagat (P.W.2) is a seizure witness leading to recovery of blood stained rock and bloodstained mud from the place of occurrence. He has proved his signature on the seizure list which is Ext.-1/1.

Fagua Oraon (P.W.3) is another eye witness and injured witness.

Birsa Oraon (P.W.4) is another seizure witness he has identified his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Ext- ½.

Krishna Singh (P.W. 5) is the Investigating Officer of this case he has proved the place of occurrence. He has also proved the carbon copy of inquest report which has been marked as Ext.-3. He has proved the seizure list which has been marked as Ext.-4. He has proved the formal F.I.R. which has been marked as Ext.- 5.

Dr. J. P. Sanga (P.W.6), has performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has proved the postmortem report which is Ext.- 6.

Dr. Ms. Jema Lakra (P.W.7) has proved the injury report of Jhibi Orain and Fagua Oraon which are Ext.- 7 series.

8. Statement of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication.

9. On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gumla held the appellants guilty and sentenced them accordingly.

10. Ms. Aparajita Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is contradiction in the statement of the witnesses on the point of manner of the assault. She has also submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the appellants and the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted of the charge.

11. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State has submitted that both the wife and son of the deceased are eye witnesses. They also sustained injuries and as such their presence at the pla