JODA SABARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three appellants have been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing murder of Doma Sabar on 19 -3 -1977 at 12 noon.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that on 19 -3 -77 P. Ws. 1, 6 and 13 and the deceased came to the house of one Bodu Sabar to negotiate about a marriage. On the way P. W. 3 accompanied them. All of them drank liquor known as 'Bihari Mai'. The appellants also joined them and they also drank liquor. Then they went to the house of Ulla Sabar where each one of them drank two more bottles of liquor. Thereafter they came and drank 'Tadi' (Kha -juri juice). All of them had been intoxicated. At that time appellant Raghu gave a slap on the check of P. W. 3 who is his brother -in -law. P. W. 3 also retaliated with a slap. Thereafter quarrel ensued. It is alleged that appellant Raghu asked the appellant Joda to bring a Kati. Joda brought a Kati from his house. The deceased was highly intoxicated and was unable to move. Raghu and Doma caught hold of both the hands of the deceased and Joda gave two to three strokes on the neck of the deceased, as a result of which the head of the deceased was severed from the body. P. Ws. l and 3 left the place and informed P. W. 9 and P. W. 5, the widow of the deceased. P. W. 9 informed the matter to the sarpanch and thereafter F.I.R. was lodged at the Police Station. P. W. 6 was watching the dead -body and at that time the appellant threatened P. W. 6 to leave the deadbody or to get similar consequence. P. W. 6 came away and thereafter the appellants dragged the deceased to some distance from the place of occurrence. The plea of the appellants is of complete denial.

(3.) P . Ws. 1, 3 and 4 are the only eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The admitted prosecution story is that the appellants, deceased as well as P. Ws. l and 3 were heavily drunk. It is admitted by these witnesses that P. Ws. 1, 3 and the appellants were not in senses. The prosecution evidence further reveals that they had consumed five bottles of country liquor and after that again they consumed Tadi.' Each one of them was not in proper sense. P. W. 1 has admitted 'we were fully intoxicated. After we were fully intoxicated we could not distinguish what is right and what is wrong. We were not under our control'. P. W. 3 has stated 'after we consumed five bottles of liquor we were heavily intoxicated and out of sense. All of us including the accused persons and deceased were out of seases.' In view of such evidence, it cannot be said that these two witnesses were in a position to know and to remember as to what was happening at the spot or who were the actual assailants. Prosecution has tried for cor -roboration of the s'atement of these two witnesses through P. W. 4 but from -he evidence of the Investigating Officer, P. W. 15, it transpires that neither P. W. 1 nor P. W. 3 stated before him about the presence of P. W. 4 at the spot. The evidence of P. W. 4 thus appears to be a subsequent development and his presence at the spot appears to be doubtful. In view of such evidence it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all shades of doubt that the evidence of these witnesses is to be accepted so as to implicate the appellants with the commission of crime.