NEEMU MURMU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal by the sole appellant is directed against the judgment and order, dated 16-12-1993 and 20-12-1993, respectively, passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 82 of 1988/46 of 1991 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC)

(2.) The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 20-4-1968 in day time exchange of hot words and quarrelling took place between the wife of Mansa Hembram on one hand and Pradhan Tudu, father of informant Mattu Tudu (PW 1) and Chetan Tudu, grand-father of informant on other hand, Mansa went to her husband and sons and narrated the incident on which they came to the house of informant and abused his father and grand-father, who did not retard because husband and sons of Mans a were, at that time, in drunken state. On the same day in the night members of the family of informant after taking meal went to bed. The informant was talking with his grandfather Chetan Tudu sitting in the verandah. His buwa (aunt) and her daughter were also sleeping there on a cot. At about 1 Oclock in the night all of a sudden, the appellant carrying a pasani (a sharpedged instrument for scraping palm tree) along with coaccused Mohan Murmu, who was also armed with pasaniT, Mansa Hembram, Khudu Hembram and Kunwar Hembram carrying lathis came there. Appellant and coaccused Mohan Tudu and Khudu Hembram caught hold of Chetan Murmu and threw him on a cot and appellant cut the throat of Chetan Murmu with pasani. When informant and his buwa raised hulla coaccused Mansa and Kunwar caught hold of his dhotiT but any how he managed to get himself freed out in this process his dhoti was torn. Thereafter, his father and other persons from village came to the place of occurrence and appellant and his companions fled away. On the next day, i.e., on 21-4-1968, the informant went to the police station and lodged the FIR (Ext. 1) against the appellant as well as coaccused Mohan Murmu. Khudu Hembram, Kunwar Hembram and Mansa. Hembram under Section 302 read with Section 148, IPC. Police did not submit any report but cognizance was taken on the basis of a protest petition filed by the informant. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Coaccused Mansa Hembram and Khudu Hembram died before commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions and thereafter, one more coaccused Mohan Murmu died. Charge under Sections 302/34, IPC was framed against the appellant and coaccused Kuwar Hembram and they were put on trial because they denied the charge against them. The case of defence as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is that the informant and Chhitu Tudu, daughter of deceased, committed the murder of deceased in order to grab his property and they falsely implicated the appellant on account of their enmity with him. After trial the appellant and coaccused Kuwar Hembram were found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Coaccused Kunwar Hembram has not joined the appellant in this appeal.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses. Mattu Tudu, (PW 1), the informant and Chhita Tudu, (PW 4) the daughter of deceased are said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Disho Tudu (PW 2), son of deceased and Tikka Soren, (PW 3) are hearsay- witnesses.