PINGAL KHADIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 I. P. C. and each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted under Section 201/34 I. P. C. and each has been sentenced to R. I. for 5 years. The sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case may be outlined in short. The 3 accused and the deceased are all Adibasis. One Bhasavan had two sons Tiharu and Niharu (the deceased ). Pingal (accused No. 1) is the son of Tiharu. Each of the accused had separate disputes with the deceased. On 26-2-66 at about 4 to 5 P. M. the deceased and accused Budni purchased two bottles of liquor from P. W. 11. They drank one bottle and carried the other bottle and proceeded to the house of Budni. Being drunk the deceased slept in the house of Budni. At about 10 to 11 P. M. , Budni called the other two accused and supplied them the plough- share (M. O. II) and the sickle (M. O. VII ). With these two weapons accused Pineal and Bisram assaulted and killed the deceased. These two accused called P. Ws. 9 and 10 (P. Ws. 8 and 9?) to come to the house of Budni to take liquor. P. Ws. 9 and 10 came to the house of Budni, but were not supplied liquor. There they found Pingal and bisram bringing out the dead body of the deceased from inside the house of Budni and carrying it towards the paddy field of one Syamsundar. Next morning P. W. 3 noticed the dead body, while going to his field. He informed the fact to P. Ws. 4 and 5 who identified the dead body to be of the deceased. P. W. 5 lodged the F. I. R. (Ext. 4 ). The defence is one of complete denial. The learned Sessions Judge held that the death was homicidal and that the accused killed the deceased.

(3.) THERE is no dispute before us that the death was homicidal. The Doctor (P. W. 1) opined that the death was due to asphyxia by strangulation. The strangulation was not by means of throttling, but by placing a hard substance, such as, iron rod or a lathi. The strangulation might have been caused by plough-share. The injuries were ante-mortem. On the Doctor's evidence, conclusion is irresistible that the death was homicidal.