Judgment:
1. The accused appeals.
2. The appellant, on being tried for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Trial Judge and challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.
3. The allegation against the appellant is that at 11.45 p.m., on 3-4-1987, he shot two arrows causing injuries on the hand and on the abdomen of Munshi Murmu, husband of Pano Hansda, P.W.4, and that on account of the injuries, Munshi Murmu died.
4. The prosecution, in order to establish the above allegation, examined six witnesses before the Trial Court and the facts, as could be discerned from oral and documentary evidence, can be briefly summarized as follows:
P.W.4, Pano Hansda, is the wife of the deceased, Munshi Murmu. There were disputes between the deceased and the accused and that on account of the existing animosity, according to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place at 11.45 p.m. on 3-4-1987.
5. On the date of incident, the deceased, Munshi Murmu, and P.W.I, Vidya Sagar Marandi, were proceeding to Hethbandha village to witness a fair. Before they could reach at the village, an arrow came from the shrub from the roadside and hit on the left hand of Munshi Murmu. Munshi Murmu raised alarm and the appellant, Shivlal Marandi, thereafter came out of the shrub and shot another arrow, which hit the abdomen of the deceased, Munshi Murmu. The appellant, Shivlal Marandi, ran away from the place and P.W. 1 taking Munshi Murmu to village Hethbandha, went to the house of Barka Murmu, P.W.3. He informed P.W.3 about the incident, who, in turn, went and informed P.W.5, the Village Pradhan, at 12.30 a.m. on 3/4--4-1987 about the incident. Information was sent to P.W4, Pano Hansda, the wife of the deceased, who, after reaching that place, went to the police station at Littipara on 4-4-1987 and gave fardbeyan, Ext. 2, to the Officer-in-charge of the police station. The crime was registered and investigation was taken up by P.W.6.
6. P.W.6, Investigating Officer, on taking up the investigation of the crime, proceeded to the place of occurrence and inspected the same. He found the dead body of Munshi Murmu lying in the courtyard of P.W.3, Barka Murmu, and blood was oozing. He found an injury on the left wrist. He noticed that the intestine was protruding out. He prepared inquest report and the same stands marked as Ext. 3. After the inquest, the body was sent to the hospital with a requisition to the Doctor to conduct autopsy.
7. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.2, Dr. Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Munshi Murmu and he found two injuries and they are as follows:
(i) Penetrating sharp cut injury on the anterior aspect of the middle of left forearm 1/4' x 1/8' x muscle deep
(ii) Sharp cut penetrating wound on the right side of hypochondrium 1' x 1/2' x deep to abdomen from which loops of the intestines and omentum were corning outside. On opening the abdomen, liver, stomach and spleen were found punctured into pieces.
The Doctor issued the post mortem certificate, Ext. 1, with his opinion that injury (ii) is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that the said injury could have been caused by a penetrating weapon, like arrow.
8. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed against the appellant.
9. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313, Cr. P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied them. He did not examine any witness on his side.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that P.W.1 could not have witnessed the appellant/accused shooting at the deceased and the fardbeyan, Ext. 2, must have been given by P.W.4, wife of the deceased, on suspicion that the appellant must have shot the deceased on account of disputes pending between them. The counsel, to buttress his argument, relies upon the evidence of P.W.3, Barka Murmu, as well as the answer given by P.W.6 in cross-examination, which have been brought as contradiction and admissible under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
11. We have carefully perused the evidence of the sole eye-witness, P.W.I, Vidya Sagar Marandi, and also the evidence of P.W.3, Barka Murmu, whom, according to the prosecution, P.W. 1 informed about the occurrence immediately thereafter. We even at the outset say that the evidence of P.W. 1 is not satisfactory. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that on the date of incident, he and the deceased, Munshi Murmu, were proceeding to Hethbandha village to witness a fair and that an arrow came from the bush and hit the deceased on his left hand. According to him, on raising alarm by the deceased, the appellant came out of the bush and shot another arrow aiming at his abdomen and that the said arrow pierced his abdomen, on account of which Munshi Murmi suffered injuries. He has further stated in his evidence that immediately after the incident, he went to the village Hethbandha, taking with him the injured Munshi Murmu, to the Courtyard of P.W.3 and that he informed P.W.3 about the occurrence. So the case of the prosecution, as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, is that he saw the appellant shooting the second arrow aiming at the abdomen of the deceased, Munshi Murmu, after the accused/appellant came out of the bush and that thereafter, he went to Hethbandha village and informed P.W.3. In this background, when we consider the evidence of P.W.5, Babulal Hembram, Village Pradhan, we are of the view that P.W. 1 could not have seen the appellant shooting arrows at the deceased, after he came out of the bush. It is the case of the prosecution that after P.W. 1 informed P.W.3 about the occurrence, P.W.3, in turn, informed P.W.5, Village Pradhan, about the occurrence. When cross-examined, P.W.5 stated that P.W.3, Barka Murmu, did not tell him as to who shot the arrow at the deceased, Munshi Murmu. P.W.5 went on to admit further that P.W.3 told him that someone shot at the deceased, Munshi Murmu, and he was lying in the courtyard. This evidence of P.W.5, therefore, shows that P.W.3 informed P.W.5 that the deceased was shot by someone and was lying in the courtyard with injuries. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 1 that he saw the appellant aiming the arrow at the abdomen and shooting at the deceased and that thereafter he informed P.W.3, who, in turn, informed P.W.5 cannot be true. At this stage, an useful reference can be made to the evidence of P.W.6 and the answers given by him in the cross-examination.
12. In the cross-examination, P.W.6, the Investigating Officer, has admitted that when he examined P.W. 1 and recorded his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C., P.W.I did not tell him that the appellant/accused was seen moving around the house of the de-ceased armed with bow and arrow and that he did not also tell him that the appellant came out of the bush and shot the second arrow at the abdomen leading to fatal injury. It can, therefore, be seen that at the earliest point of time, P.W. 1 did not mention the fact of his seeing the appellant/accused with bow and arrow near the house of the deceased and that he did not also say that the appellant/accused came out of the bush and shot the second arrow aiming at the abdomen of the deceased leading to the fatal injury. Hence, it is clear that for the first time in the Court, P.W. 1 had come out with the present version and therefore, P.W. 1 could not have given any information to P.W.3 as regards the assailant's name. Therefore, it is clear that P.W.3 informed P.W. 5 that the deceased was shot at by someone and he was lying in the courtyard. In the above background, the Court cannot but draw an inference that both the arrows must have been shot from the bush and P.W. 1, not being in a position to know the person as to who shot at the deceased, would have informed P.W.3 that the deceased was shot at by someone and that is the reason why P.W.3 informed P.W.5 that the deceased was shot at by someone. We, therefore, find it unsafe to accept the evidence of P.W. 1 to uphold the conviction of the appellant.
13. In view of the discussion made above, we reject the evidence of P.W. 1 and acquit the appellant. This appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is set aside. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. He is discharged from his bail bonds.