JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.7.2002 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 439/99/T.R. No. 74/2002, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi held the appellant guilty under Section 302, IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for life.
2. The factual matrix leading to this appeal are that in the night of 14.2.1999 the informant Hissi Mundain was cooking food in her house while the deceased, her husband Lakhan Munda was sitting in the room on a mat. It is further stated that two small kids were also sleeping there, when all of a sudden appellant Lallu Munda, cousin brother of the deceased, entered into the room carrying a dagger in his hand and gave the fatal blow with the dagger on the left side of his chest. The informant rushed to help her husband but in the meantime Lallu Munda fled away carrying the dagger. The informant raised alarm and tried to help the deceased but he died on the spot. On alarm raised by the informant, other family members, residing inside other room of house, came and saw the deceased. They were further informed by informant Hissi Mundain regarding the incident. The reason behind this occurrence is said to be a land dispute between two brothers of father-in-law of the informant. The matter was reported next day to Hatia police, which arrived at the PO, recorded the statement of the informant, prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem. The police registered Hatia P.S case No. 18/99 under Section 302, IPC, investigated the case and finally submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. The trial Court, after examining witnesses, found and held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid.
3. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned trial Court has not considered the improbability of the prosecution case. It is. asserted that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence except the informant, who has not been corroborated by the probable witness on the point of assault made by the appellant. It is further asserted that the story of open door at 10 P.M. on 14.2.1999 also appears not probable. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was found wearing a janghia and lungi on his body, which is not possible in the middle of February, 99. The learned Counsel suggested that even the informant was not eye-witness of the occurrence, who has been tutored to implicate this appellant in the false case because of land dispute. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted.
4. We have anxiously considered the points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The prosecution case admittedly stands on the sole evidence of the informant, wife of the deceased. PW 1 Somra Munda, brother and PW 3 Sukra Munda, father of the deceased, examined before the trial Court, have categorically submitted that on halla raised by PW 2, they went running to find Lakhan Munda lying dead with stab injury. They have not claimed to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. During cross-examination these two witnesses stated that there was land dispute between two families. PW 4 Ratan Munda is a witness on the inquest report prepared by the police. These two witnesses are truthful as they did not claim to see the occurrence. PW 2, the informant, has supported her fardbeyan before the police. She has admitted in cross-examination that at the time of occurrence she along with her kids were present and deceased fell down with stab injury to die instantaneously. This witness is truth, as she admitted that the room was situated in common angan resided by the witnesses and the accused.
5. PW 5. Dr. R.S. Sahu has recorded in the post-mortem, vide Ext. 1, that the dead body got a stab wound 3-1 /2 cm. x 2 cm. x cavity deep on left chest. PW 6, the IO, described the PO, position of the dead body and has supported the prosecution case. He has admitted in cross-examination that he did not find any cooked food at the PO. The defence has not brought on record any material contradiction in evidence of these witnesses. The learned Counsel for the appellant suggested that in absence of any corroborative evidence as well as motive for committing the murder, the appellant should be given benefit of doubt.
6. After going through the evidence on record and the submissions made before us, we find that the suggestion made on behalf of the appellant is not tenable. The witnesses are truthful as they have not tried to exaggerate or interpolate the prosecution version rather they simply stated what they saw in the night of 14.2.1999 when PW 2 was cooking food and her husband was sitting nearby her. The appellant, as stated, entered into the room, stabbed him and fled away. In such circumstances she may be the only witness of the occurrence. There is no apparent reason why she should implicate falsely the appellant. If the false implication was the purpose, PWs 1 and 3 might have come with supporting evidence to implicate the appellant. It is established law of the land that in such crimes motive is not the only criteria to fix the responsibility.
7. Having considered the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges under Section 302, IPC against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly we find that the present appeal has got no merit and stands dismissed.