The court upheld the conviction for murder based on reliable eyewitness testimony and rejected the alibi defence due to lack of corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 01.03.2001 and order of sentence dated 02.03.2001 passed by the learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 1989, whereby and whereunder, the appellants having been found guilty of charge under Sections 302 /34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 /34 IPC. Further, appellant No. 11, namely Anand Mahto has also been convicted and sentences to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 324 IPC.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants had taken the defence plea of alibi to the effect that the appellant No. 1-Tiran Mahato was admitted in Chakradharpur hospital from 21.11.1987 to 23.11.1987 and submitted that the entire prosecution story is unbelievable. He further submitted that in support of the aforesaid contention two defence witnesses have also been examined and the certificate to this effect has already been issued by the Doctor A.K. Mahato, which has been marked as Ext.-A. He also submitted that O.T. Register of Chakradharpur Hospital of relevant period has been brought before the Court, which has been marked as Ext. B and B/1, which disclose that Tirendra Mahato was admitted in Hospital on 21.11.1987. He also submitted that O.T. Assistant of the Hospital namely, Mordawaj Mahto (D.W.2) deposed that Tirendra Mahato was operated by Dr. A.K. Mahato and the entry in the register is in his pen and signature and in the said register, it has been mentioned that on 28.11.1987 the stitch of the operation of Tiran Mahato was removed, which has been marked as Ext.-B/1. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants has prayed for acquittal of the appellants, as they have falsely been implicated in this case.

3. Counsel for the State submitted that P.W. 1 (Jagdish Lohar), P.W. 2 (Lakshmi Narayan Mahato) and P.W.3 (Jadu Lohar) are the eye witnesses of the occurrence who had seen the entire occurrence and identified all the accused persons. He also submitted that P.W. 5 (Raj Kishor Mahato), who is the father of the deceased deposed that that when he reached near the place of occurrence, he saw all the accused persons fleeing away. He also submitted that the evidence of the above witnesses is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused persons assaulted and killed the deceased and they have common intention to commit murder of the deceased. Thus, as per the counsel for the State, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

4. The FIR is at the instance of Jagdish Lohar (P.W.-1). He stated that on 23.11.1987, he along with one Balram Mahato had come to Chaibasa Court and after completing the work, they were returning from the Court to their home. When they were crossing Ghaghra Ghat and were proceeding to the village Rugari, at about 5 P.M, they were going by the field of one Gadi Gope, in the meantime, all of a sudden the informant was assaulted on his back by Danda by some one from behind. As soon as the informant turned his head back, the appellant- Anand Mahato gave a Bhujali blow near his right eye, resulting injury on his forehead. He also noticed that other accused persons armed with various weapon, started assaulting Balram Mahato conjointly. It has been stated that accused Jadunath Mahato was armed with Farsa, Bipin Mahato was armed with knife, whereas, Babulal was armed with Tangi while the remaining accused persons were armed with lath