A conviction under Section 302 IPC requires credible evidence; mere presence amidst noise does not suffice to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

R. Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Special P. P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.11.2002 passed by Sri Shri Kant Roy, learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Seraikella in S. T. No. 130 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fard Beyan of Sumi Tiu recorded on 11.05.2022 in which it has been stated that on 10.05.2022 at about 11:00 P.M., the husband of the informant namely, Sadhu Tiu after having his meals was sitting at home, when her brothers-in-law namely, Dularam Tiu (appellant) and Konda Tiu came and called the husband of the informant at which he came out of the house and while sitting on the cot started conversing with them. In course of conversation, both the accused persons committed assault upon the husband of the informant with lathi at which he fell down on the ground and died. No one came to the rescue of the husband of the informant primarily for the reason that a loudspeaker was blaring on account of a marriage party going on in the vicinity. When the informant raised a cry of alarm, the accused persons had fled away.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Kharsawan P. S. Case No. 14 of 2002 was instituted for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S. T. No. 130 of 2002. Charge was framed under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W. 1 – Dr. Pradip Kumar Pati was posted as a Medical Officer in Sub-Divisional Hospital and on 11.05.2022 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sadhu Tiu and had found the following:

A. Nutritional status of body was poor.

B. Rigor mortis present.

C. Bleeding from both nostrils.

D. Abrasion over root of nose 1/2 ” x 1/2 “ with contusion of underlying area.

E. Abrasion below right eye ½” x 1 cm.

F. Sub conjunctional haemorrhage over left eye.

G. Abrasion over extension aspect of right elbow joint. 1 1/2 “ x 1 cm.

H. Abrasion over extension of left elbow joint at two places diamante of each being 1 cm x 1 cm.

I. There was fracture of nosal, frontal, ethmoidal bone.

6. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and death was caused by haemorrhage due to such injuries. The post mortem report was proved and marked as Exhibit 1.

7. P.W. 2 – Kamal Narayan Singh was posted as an Officer-in- Charge in Kharsawan Police Station and on 11.05.2022 he had recorded the fard beyan of Sumi Tiu. He had proved the fard beyan which has been marked as Exhibit 2. The endorsement on the FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit 2/1. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit 3. He had prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Anand-dih in the courtyard of the deceased. He had recorded the re-statement of the informant as well as statements of other witnesses. He had submitted charge-sheet on the direction of supervisory authority.

In cross-examination he has deposed that apart from the informant, Belan Tiu and Karu Tiu claimed to have witnessed the occurrence.

8. P.W. 3 – Karu Tiu has stated that he was in his house and in the morning, the informant had disclosed that Sadhu Tiu has been murdered by the accused persons by assault made with danda. It is incorrect to say that he had witnessed the occurrence.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that whatever has been stated by him is hearsay.

9. P.W. 4 – Belan Tiu