KISHUN SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the charge of committing the murder of Chander Sao, the informant's husband, in furtherance of their common intention, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by judgment and order dated 17.9.1992 in S.T.No. 36 of 1991 passed by Shri R.S.Sathi, The then Sessions Judge, Gumla.

(2.) Briefly state, the prosecution case, as made out in the first information report (Exhibit 3) is as under: Khiro Sao, a resident of village Kulabira (Pandaria) within P.S. Gumla, had committed theft in the house of Pappu Sao for which he was fined Rs. 500/- by the Panchayat. The sum of Rs. 300/- of the realised fine was spent on feast while the balance fine amount of Rs. 200/- was in deposit with Chandar Sao, the informant's husband. On 21.7.1990 at about 4.00 p.m., the appellant Kishun Sao, a co-villagers visited the house of the informant (Urmila Devi) and PW 11 and demanded the sum of Rs., 200/- from Chandar Sao, her husband and proposed to purchase a bag for feast in the night, but he declined to participate in the feast or to go with him saying that he does not eat hog flesh. Ultimately, appellant Kishun Sao took him to his house for drinks. After some time, the informant heard the cries of her husband coming from the house of appellant Kishun Sao, whereupon the informant and her son, Sisir Kumar (PW 12) rushed to the house of appellant Kishun Sao, which is at a distance of about 25 yards, and saw that appellant Kishun Sao and her son (Hira Sao) the other appellant, were assaulting her husband with Tangi, who lay injured on the ground. The informant raised hue and cry. Her injured husband blocked by appellant Kishun Sao in a room and he bade the informant and her son to go away, else he would cut them into pieces. The informant and her son returned. She narrated the incident to her parents-in-law (P.W 2) and (PW5) and other family members, who went running to the house of the appellant Kishun Sao. Both the appellants, armed with Tangi and sword, threatened them with dire consequences. Thereafter the informant along with her son. (Sisir Sao) went to the police station and lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit 3) on the same day about 6.00 p.m. The distance between the P.O. village and Gumla Police Station is about 18 kms. The cause of the incident is that there were differences between the appellant Kishun Sao and her family over the land. On the basis of the First Information Report, the case came to be instituted, a formal First Information Report (Exhibit 4) was drawn up, the police officer (PW 13) assumed and commenced investigation, visited the place of occurrence, got the lock of the door of the eastern room of his house opened by the wife of appellant Kishun Sao, found the dead body of Chandar Sao, lying in the room in pool of blood, noticed blood marks on the plank and threshold of the room, he collected and seized samples of blood stained earth and also the Tangi, exposed to the rains, at a distance of about 4' from the threshold (Exhibit 5), he held inquest over the dead-body, sent it for post-mortem examination and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid in Court against the accused-appellant. The main defence is of innocence and false implication due to enmity. The further defence is that Chandar Sao, the deceased, had attempted to rape Rukmini Kumari (D. W. 1), the minor daughter of appellant (Kishun Sao) while she was alone in her house and in defence, she had pushed and assaulted him with a danda, as a result of which he suffered wounds and died. The further defence is that at the time of the Incident, the appellants were not in the house. The plea of alibi has been taken by appellant Hire Sao, inasmuch as at that time he was present in his college at Gumla.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Out of them, P.W 5, 7 and 9 are tendered witnesses. P.W 8 (Chander Sao) is a witness on the inquest report. PW 6 Lal Mohan Sao) is a seizure-list witness. The father PWs are P.W 1 (Jaleshwar Sao), the younger brother of the deceased, PW 2 (Debtu Sao), father of the deceased, P. W. 3 (Nem Narayan Sao), elder brother of the deceased, PW 4 (Arbind Sao) the nephew of the deceased, PW 10 (Dr. Yegendra Prasad Sanga), who held autopay on the dead-body, PW 11 (Urmila Devi), the informant, PW 12 (Sisir Kumar), son of the deceased, and PW 13 (Vishwar Nath Singh), the Investigating Officer. PWs 11 and 12 claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 have testified to the effect that PWs 11 and 12 had immediately narrated the incident and disclosed the names of the appellants as the assailants of the deceased. The defence, on the other hand, has examined five witnesses, namely, D.W. 1 (Rukmini Kumari), D.W. 2 (Newla Sao), her brother D.W. 3 (Jagat Pal alias Palu Sahu), elder brother of appellant Kishun Sao, D.W.4 (Sukra Drson) on the plea of alibi of appellant Hira Sao and D.W. 5 (Aghani Devi), wife of appellant Kishun Sao.