JUDGEMENT

By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 09.10.2015 and order of sentence dated 15.10.2015, passed by Learned Judicial Commissioner 6th, Ranchi, in S.T. No.469 of 2013 (arising out of Narkopi P.S. Case No.07 of 2013 and G.R. No.434 of 2013), whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Sections 448/34 IPC an fine of Rs.500/- each and further sentenced RI for life for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default, to further undergo SI for one year.

2. Informant is the wife of the deceased. As per the FIR appellants Birsa Oraon and Lachu Oraon entered the house of the informant and started assaulting her husband, causing to him critical injuries and in the said assault, she was also sustained injury on her head. It is further stated that she has two sons, one Jaokin Bhagat who lives in Ranchi with his family and working as daily wages labour and second son Panchu Oraon lives at Dhanbad with his family and he also working as daily wages labour and the informant and her husband (deceased) used to live in their village and did cultivation thereon.

3. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, an FIR being Narkopi P.S. Case No.07 of 2013 was registered under Sections 448/307/34 IPC. During course of treatment her husband died and consequently Section 302 IPC vide order dated 02.05.2013 was added.

4. On investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 302/448/ 324 / 34 IPC. The learned trial court below framed charge and the accused persons were put on trial.

5. Judgment of conviction and sentence is assailed on the ground that it was a case of sudden fight for which the offence under Section 302 IPC will not be made out. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is only one injury on the person of the deceased. He further submits that considering the relationship who are agnates, it is clear that there was no intention to commit murder of the deceased.

6. It is further submitted that the informant, claims to be injured in the incidence and to remained in the Hospital for one month, but surprisingly the prosecution neither produced the Doctor nor produced any document to suggest that the informant/ injured was treated in the Hospital. In absence of any injury report, the prosecution has failed to prove that informant P.W.-3 was injured in the incidence. Thus her presence as an eye witness at the place of occurrence comes under a cloud.

7. On the point of sentence it is submitted that both appellant no.1 and appellant no.2 are in custody since 15.03.2013. Appellant No.2 has been released on bail by suspending after serving about 10 years of sentence on 10.10.2022.

8. The learned counsel for the State has defended the Judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that P.W.3 being the wife of the deceased and as the incidence took place in her house, therefore she was a natural witness to the incidence. Since P.W.3 is an injured witness, her statement carries much weight and a higher degree of credence. It is further contended that she was injured in the incidence. This part of her testimony has remained undemolished in the cross-examination. Merely because her injury report was not produced cannot be a ground to brush aside her entire testimony.

9. Homicidal death is not disputed and is objectively established by the post-

mortem examination report. There is no suggestion on behalf of the defence to dispute the homicidal nature of death.

10. After hearing the parties and going through the entire evidence on record, we find that nine witnesses were examined, yet the most important witness is P.W.3. Law is settled that uncorroborated testimony of solit