The judgment emphasizes the importance of eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the application of legal provisions in establishing guilt and justifying the conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant appeal is against Judgment of conviction dated 11.02.1994 and Order of sentence dated 17.02.1994 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Godda in Sessions Case No.121 of 1990/12 of 1994, whereby and whereunder, the surviving appellant, i.e., appellant no.1, namely, Sudhir Rawani has been convicted under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code for committing murder of Gopal Rawani and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the commission of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code with direction to run both the sentences concurrently.

The appellant no.2, namely, Darwari Rawani, (now deceased) has been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and fine of Rs.1000/-for the commission of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to Vijay Rawani.

2. The prosecution story in brief as per the fardbeyan given by Kamala Devi-P.W.4, widow of the deceased (Gopal Rawani) to S.I. Sheo Nandan Sharma (P.W.7), Officer-in-charge of P.S. Lalmatia on 13.04.1990 at about 2:00 a.m. in Village-Mahua Bathan is that on 12.04.1990 in the morning, informant Kamala Devi and her husband’s elder brother’s wife, Suro Devi (P.W.3) had gone together to gather Mahua but by that time, Mahua had already been gathered by the wife and mother of accused person, namely, Sudhir Rawani. Therefore, the informant and her companion silently returned back home and narrated the said incident to their respective husbands. After discussing the matter in between the family members at about 2:00 p.m. on 12.04.1990, Gopal Rawani, (the deceased & husband of informant) was going to Pradhan Metua Murmu for registering his complaint, as dispute regarding Mahua tree was still unresolved. But in midway, when he come across accused Sudhir Rawani and Darbari Rawani, exchange of hot words between them were started. In the meantime, accused Sudhir Rawani was running to his house and came out with Bhala. He struck spear (Bhala) with great force on the chest of Gopal Rawani. The spear crossed the whole body of the deceased Gopal Rawani which resulted into his death. Upon this, Vijay Rawani (P.W.1), elder brother of the deceased, went there. Then accused Darbari Rawani starting giving lathi blow to Vijay Rawani. In the meantime, accused Sudhir Rawani while leaving Bhala, had lifted lathi and gave lathi blow to Vijay Rawani. Informant Kamala Devi started hue and cry, thereupon witness Sat Lal Murmu (P.W.2), Hopan Mai Murmu (P.W.5), Lilamani etc., who were sitting at nearby area had witnessed the occurrence.

On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Boarijore (Lalmatia) P.S. Case No.50/90 was registered. Formal F.I.R. (Ext.5) was drawn up.

After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons and after cognizance having been taken by the C.J.M., Godda on 13.07.1990, the case was finally committed to the Court of Sessions wherefrom the case was transferred for disposal and accordingly, the concerned Court has started trial and has framed charge against the accused persons and accused persons pleaded not guilty and thereafter, the trial commenced.

The prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses and after considering the testimony of P.W.4-Kamla Devi and P.W.5-Hopan Mai Murmu to be eye witnesses and by relying upon the same, having found to be in corroboration to the prosecution version being corroborated by the Doctor so far as the injury sustained by the deceased and the Investigating Officer P.W.7 has found the charge proved against the surviving appellant i.e., appellant no.1 beyond all shadow of doubts and as such, the judgment of conviction/sentence has been passed.

3. Before proceeding with the matter, it requires to refer herein that the original appellant no.2