The conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC was upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence, establishing the common intention to commit murder.

JUDGMENT

Reserved on: 28.11.2024 Pronounced On: 04.12.2024 Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . Appellants are before this Court in appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 of the IPC.

2. Informant is the brother of deceased. As per the FIR, on 17.06.1992 at about 6 am. informant-Chiru Oraon along with his brother Fauda Oraon had gone to plough his agricultural field. At about 8:00 a.m., Suleman Oraon armed with Lathi and accused Birendra Oraon armed with sword came there and asked them to leave the land. In the meantime, accused- Pityush Oraon armed with bow and arrow, Lal Mohan Oraon, Sakhu Oraon, Lalu Oraon, Chitru Oraon, Sikil Oraon and Namdeo Baraik armed with Lathi, Mathura Baraik with Tangi, Soma Oraon with Lathi and Tangi, Birendra and Ram Prasad Oraon with sword and Ram Chandra armed with Balua came there and attacked the informant party. Soma Oraon assaulted Fauda Oraon (deceased) with Tangi, Birendra Oraon and Ram Prasad Oraon assaulted him with sword as a result of which, he sustained injuries. After Fauda Oraon fell down, they continued with the assault. Mathura Baraik assaulted him with Tangi and other named accused persons assaulted him by Lathi. When the informant went to rescue of his brother, he was assaulted by Fauda Oraon, Pityush Oraon and Namdeo Baraik and Ram Chandra Oraon assaulted him with Balua as a result of which the informant sustained injuries and he fled away to save his life.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan , Chainpur P.S. case No.38/92 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 302 of the IPC against these appellants and other co-accused persons. Police on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet and the accused persons were put on trial for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 149 of the IPC, accused- Ram Chandra was further charged under Section 324 of the IPC.

4. Altogether eight witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Apart from the prosecution evidence, relevant documents including post-mortem examination report, inquest report, fardbeyan and revenue records have been proved and marked as exhibits.

5. After the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Defence is of innocence, but no specific defence has been pleaded in the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Two witnesses on behalf of defence have also been examined.

6. Ms. Jyoti Nayan, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that one Sikil Oraon, who is also an accused, was, in fact, not present at the place of occurrence and in the village on the said date of occurrence. As the Investigating Officer during investigation has found that he was not present in the village which would suggest that the informant has falsely implicated not only Sikil Oraon but others also. Further, she submits that Ram Prasad Oraon has been made an accused but he had died five days before occurrence on 12.06.1992. The aforesaid fact has been brought to the notice of the Court by the Investigating Officer while deposing as PW-7. The Investigating Officer has also stated that the death certificate was seen by him and entry in the case diary has already been made. She further submits that all the injuries on the body of the deceased are incised wounds, but as per the prosecution case, he was also assaulted mercilessly by the accused persons with sticks but surprisingly, no corresponding injury caused by hard and blunt substance was found which suggests that the entire prosecution case is fabricated. The informant is an interested and related witness and he is none other than the brother of the deceased. Thus, the Court should be cautious in dealing with his evidence. She relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhote Lal Vs. Rohtash & Ors. {2023 INSC 1072} (neutral citation).

Further, it has been mentioned that there is no eye-witness to the said occurrence when it is