JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.12.1998 passed by Sri S.H. Kazmi, learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302/34 of the IPC and u/s 307/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence u/s 302/34 of the IPC and R.I. for seven years for the offence u/s 307/34 of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The original appellant no. 1 Barun Kumar Mahato @ Barun Mahato had died during the pendency of this appeal which has been noted in the order dated 10.12.2024 and this appeal, therefore, survives only with respect to Padmawati Mahato. 4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Sunil Chandra Mahato recorded on 08.02.1993, in which, it has been stated that on the same day the goat and ox of Barun Mahato were eating Rahar saplings at which the younger brother of the informant Manohar Mahato had chased away the cattle. At this, the wife of Barun Mahato came and demanded an explanation as to why the cattle have been beaten. This resulted in an altercation between the informant, his father and his cousin brother Barun Mahato and being enraged Barun Mahato took out an iron rod from his house and indiscriminately assaulted the father of the informant on his head. Based on the aforesaid allegations Patamda P.S.Case No. 6 of 1993 was instituted u/s 341/323/324/447/307 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1993. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302/34 of the IPC and u/s 307/34 of the IPC which was read over and explained to her in Hindi to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case. 6. P.W.1 (Dr. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302/34 of the IPC and u/s 307/34 of the IPC which was read over and explained to her in Hindi to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case. 6. P.W.1 (Dr. Y Nath) was posted as an Assistant Professor Forensic Medicines Department, MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur and on 09.02.1993 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Nitai Mahato and had found the following: (A) Stitched lacerated wounds. (i) 3 cm (‰ cm x scalp deep) over occipital scalp lower part with three stiches. (ii) 4 cm (‰ cm x scalp deep) over the upper left occipital scalp with four stitches. (iii) 5 cm (‰ cm x scalp deep) over the right occipital scalp upper part. There was a crack fracture of the right occipital bone. (iv) 2‰ cm (‰ cm x scalp deep) over the right frontal scalp with V shaped crack fracture under the wound involving right frontal bone. Another depressed fracture extending from Rt. crack fracture upto tempera occipital bone of right side measuring 19 cm x 2 cm. (B) Internal injuries- There was contusion of the whole scalp and whole brain and soft tissues of face, blood and blood clots in the cranial cavity. The death was opined to be due to head injury. The antemortem injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. 7. P.W.2 (Dhananjay Mahato) has stated that he was in the door of his house when he saw Nitai Mahato being caught hold of by Padmawati and Barun Mahato assaulted Nitai Mahato on his head 4-5 times with a rod. The incident took place at a distance of ten hands from the place where he was standing. The incident occurred due to the fact that the goat and ox of Barun Mahato were devouring Rahar plants which initially resulted in an altercation and subsequently it culminated in an assault. He had not taken any steps to prevent the incident. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the duration of the assault was 2-4 minutes. He had not tried to save Nitai Mahato from being assaulted. He had seen Nitai lying on the ground and Padmawati pressing him. On hearing the commotion some persons had come. He had not taken any steps to prevent the incident. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the duration of the assault was 2-4 minutes. He had not tried to save Nitai Mahato from being assaulted. He had seen Nitai lying on the ground and Padmawati pressing him. On hearing the commotion some persons had come. He has taken the name of Nagen Mahato and Kanhai Mahato. Prior to the occurrence there was a land dispute between Nitai and Barun. 8. P.W.3 (Arjun Mahato) is the son of the deceased who has stated that it was morning and he was warming his hands besides the fire along with his father. Barun had let loose his cattle in the Rahar crops at which Manohar Mahato had chased away the ox. This resulted in a quarrel between Barun and Manohar and when his father went to intervene, he was assaulted with a rod on head while the wife of Barun had caught hold of his waist. The wife of Barun had also stabbed his father. His brother Sunil was also assaulted with the rod on head. In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time when the altercation was taking place several persons had assembled though he has shown his inability to name any of them. 9. P.W.4 (Nagendra Nath Mahato) has stated that on hearing a commotion he had gone near the house of Nitai where he found Nitai lying in the khalian while Barun with a rod was standing with his wife. He later on came to know from Manohar that Barun had committed the assault. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had gone to place of occurrence 10-15 minutes after he heard the commotion. Before he had reached the place of occurrence Sunil and his sister Gurucharni were present. He has further deposed that he does not know that with respect to the same incident a case was also registered against Sunil and Manohar. In the case against Sunil and Manohar he had given his evidence in general terms but not in favour of Sunil and Manohar. 10. He has further deposed that he does not know that with respect to the same incident a case was also registered against Sunil and Manohar. In the case against Sunil and Manohar he had given his evidence in general terms but not in favour of Sunil and Manohar. 10. P.W.5 (Sunil Mahato) has stated that he was in his house when the cattle of Barun Mahato started eating Rahar plants and when his brother chased away the cattle there was a hot talk between Manohar and Barun Mahato and when his father reached Padmawati caught hold of his father while Barun gave rod blows on the head of his father. He was chased away by Barun Mahato. When he came back to the place of occurrence after two minutes, he saw his father lying in an unconscious state and Barun and Padmawati standing besides his father. Nagen Mahato, Dhananjay Mahato and Nagendra Mahato had reached the place of occurrence at the same time. He had gone to Patamda P.S. where Police recorded his fardbeyan. He has proved his signature in the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-2. His father died in MGM Medical College & Hospital on the day the occurrence had taken place. In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of quarrel 3-4 persons had arrived at the place of occurrence. Nagen Mahato, Nagendra Mahato, Dhananjay Mahato and his two brothers were present. Barun Mahato had assaulted his father in his presence 5-6 times with the iron rod in his hand. He was assaulted on head with iron rod by Barun Mahato twice. There was no land dispute going on between his father and Barun Mahato prior to the incident of assault. 11. P.W.6 (Suresh Prasad Paswan) was posted as an Officer-in-Charge of Patamda P.S. and on 08.02.1993 at 8:30 A.M. he had recorded the fardbeyan of Sunil Chandra Mahato. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-3. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. On the order of the Superintendent of Police he was entrusted with the investigation of the case on 19.04.1993. In cross-examination, he has deposed that except recording of fardbeyan and registration of formal FIR as well as seeking issuance of warrant of arrest against Padmawati he has not done any further investigation. 12. On the order of the Superintendent of Police he was entrusted with the investigation of the case on 19.04.1993. In cross-examination, he has deposed that except recording of fardbeyan and registration of formal FIR as well as seeking issuance of warrant of arrest against Padmawati he has not done any further investigation. 12. P.W.7 (Bhukendra Mahato) has stated that he was sleeping when in the morning he had heard some commotion and when he came out, he saw a quarrel between Barun Mahato and Nitai Mahato. Despite his intervention they did not stop their quarrel. He thereafter went home and at 7:30-8:00 A.M. when he came out of his house on the call of the villagers he saw the dead body of Nitai Mahato in the field. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not given any statement to the Police regarding assault by Barun with an iron rod on Nitai Mahato and catching hold of Nitai by the wife of Barun. He had not seen any assault and had not disclosed about seeing the assault to the Police. 13. P.W.8 (Dina Nath Singh) was posted as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Patamda P.S. and on 08.02.1993 he was given the charge of investigation in connection with Patamda P.S. Case No. 6 of 1993. After taking over the investigation he had recorded the restatement of the informant Sunil Chandra Mahato and had also inspected the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is situated at village Jala in front of the house of Nitai Chandra Mahato in an open space. From the place of occurrence, he had seized two iron rods of 3 feet length, a spear and blood-stained earth. He has proved the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-5. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses and on 08.02.1993 sent Nitai Chandra Mahato to MGM Medical College & Hospital for treatment. He has also sent Sunil Chandra Mahato to the said hospital for treatment. He had obtained the post-mortem report and for further investigation he had handed over charge on 30.03.1993 to Officer-in-Charge Suresh Paswan. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not sent the seized articles for forensic examination to FSL. He does not know as to whether Barun Mahato had instituted a court case or not. 14. He had obtained the post-mortem report and for further investigation he had handed over charge on 30.03.1993 to Officer-in-Charge Suresh Paswan. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not sent the seized articles for forensic examination to FSL. He does not know as to whether Barun Mahato had instituted a court case or not. 14. P.W.9 (Ratan Kumar) had taken over the investigation of Patamda P.S. Case No. 6 of 1993 from Sub- Inspector Suresh Paswan. He had arrested Padmawati Mahato on 10.05.1993. He had thereafter submitted charge sheet. In cross-examination, he has deposed that except arresting Padmawati Mahato and submitting charge sheet he has not done anything more in the investigation. 15. P.W.10 (Babu Ram Mahato) has identified his signature and the signature of Nagendra Nath Mahato on the inquest report which have been marked as Exhibit-2/1 and Exhibit- 2/2 respectively. 16. P.W.11 (Kushna Kumar Lal) was posted in MGM Medical College and on 08.02.1993 he had examined Sunil Chandra Mahato and had found the following: (1) A lacerated wound on the middle of scalp 4” x ½” x bone deep. Nature – Simple, caused by long hard and blunt substance. Time of injury within 12 hrs. (2) M.I.- A wound scar mark on the upper interior part of the left elbow joint. The nature of injure was opined to be simple caused by hard and blunt substance. The injury report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6. On the same day he had examined Nitai Chandra Mahato and had found the following: (i) Patient is unconscious. (ii) Lacerated wound on the anterior part of scalp 2” x ½” x ½”. (iii) Lacerated wound on the back of scalp 3” x ½” x bone deep. (iv) Lacerated wound on the occipital area 2” x ½” x bone deep. Opinion was reserved till the condition of the patient improves. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. The injury report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6/1. 17. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, she has denied her complicity in the murder of Nitai Chandra Mahato. 18. Mr. Opinion was reserved till the condition of the patient improves. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. The injury report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6/1. 17. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, she has denied her complicity in the murder of Nitai Chandra Mahato. 18. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has submitted that the only allegation against the appellant is of catching hold of Nitai Chandra Mahato while her husband had rained blows on his head with an iron rod grievously injuring him and ultimately the same led to his death. There are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses which would lead to evaporation of any specific role played by the appellant in sharing a common intention with her husband in eliminating Nitai Chandra Mahato. 19. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. for the State has submitted that there are several eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the role played by the appellant has been specifically demarcated by them. 20. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the Trial Court Records. 21. An innocuous incident of the ox and goat of Barun Kumar Mahato devouring the sapling of Arhar crop led to a quarrel and accelerated into a full-blown assault upon Nitai Chandra Mahato with iron rod by Barun Kumar Mahato. The appellant being the wife of Barun Kumar Mahato has been attributed to have assisted in the assault by catching hold of the waist of Nitai Chandra Mahato immobilizing him and facilitating the pointed assault with iron rod on head. The allegation against the appellant seems to be in a generalized form and in some cases, there has been exaggeration with respect to the manner of assault. It is to be borne in mind that both the parties were on inimical terms with each other from before as stated by P.W.2 and the embers of tension between both the sides catapulted into a fiery rage on the part of Barun Mahato resulting in such brutal assault. P.W.3 has stated that the appellant had stabbed his father which is contrary to what has been stated by the eyewitnesses and which has been demolished in the postmortem report where the weapon used was opined to be hard and blunt substance. P.W.3 has stated that the appellant had stabbed his father which is contrary to what has been stated by the eyewitnesses and which has been demolished in the postmortem report where the weapon used was opined to be hard and blunt substance. Moreover, it appears that the deceased was aged 45 years with an average built and the appellant holding her to enable her husband to rain accurate blows on the temple with the rod appears to be farfetched bordering on absurdity. It is no doubt true that the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment due to the quarrel and the entire allegation of assault is against Barun Kumar Mahato but so far as the present appellant is concerned, her mere presence at the place of occurrence has elevated her status to that of an accused. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and the facts noted above having not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court, we hereby set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.12.1998 passed by Sri S.H. Kazmi, learned 3 rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1993. 22. This appeal is allowed. 23. Since the appellant is on bail, she is discharged from the liability of her bail bond. 24. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae and consequently direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees to Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.