SHEO MANJHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the appellants were sent for trial for offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code on charges of committing murder of Hari Manjhi in furtherance of their common intention, they suffered conviction under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.

(2.) SHORN of details, the prosecution case as emerging from fardbeyan of Chaiti Devi PW 4 was that in the evening of 13th August, 1985 during a feast, that was being observed at the residence of deceased Baijnath Manjhi, a panchaiti was convened for induction of the appellants in the community which was strongly resisted by Sheo Manjhi. Altercation took place between appellants and the deceased Hari Manjhi, when appellants sharply reached to the suggestions made by the deceased to come under the common roof. If was alleged that shortly thereafter, Sheo Manjhi, Mahadeo Manjhi and Chanchal Manjhi caught hold of the deceased persuant to which Mahadeo Manjhi dealt a severe blow with wooden substance (Mussal) on his head. It was alleged that the deceased, also suffered injury on his arms, and shortly dropped to the ground. Though injured was carried to Sultanganj Hospital but as his condition continued to be critical, he was carried to Bhagalpur Hospital where he eventually succumbed to the injuries and with these narrations in the fardbeyan, Chaiti Devi set the police in motion and investigation commenced. During pendency of the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses, sent dead-body for mortuary and on receipt of post-mortem report, laid charge-sheet against the appellants and they went fro trial under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the eventual trial, prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses including the witnesses claiming to be ocular, the Investigating Officer and also the doctor who held autopsy by over the dead-body of the deceased.

(3.) THE criticism levelled by the defence to assail propriety of the finding recorded by the trial Court was based primarily on two counts. Firstly, it is sought to be urged that though in the early version of the prosecution which emerges from the fardbeyan. Chaiti Devi PW 4. Sheo Manjhi and Chanchal Manjhi were not suggested to be the assailants, distorted versions of the prosecution were sought to be introduced in the statement of the witnesses to make them equally answerable as that of Mahadeo Manjhi for executing killing of Hari Manjhi. Learned Counsel would urge that though Chaiti Devi PW 4 would claim to be the ocular witness to the indecent, she admitted in positive terms in her cross-examination that she reached at the place of occurrence after her husband dropped to the ground, and in quick succession it is sought to be urged that if the statement of Chaiti Devi PW 4 is taken to be true on its face value, that will excluded her to be an ocular witness. THE next limb of argument pressed into service on behalf of the appellants was that the prosecution was also guilty of introducing distorted version with regard to the place of occurrence for which there was no consistent evidence of the witnesses, as while same witnesses were narrating that it was the darwaza of late Baijnath Manjhi, where feast was arranged. Some were stating before the Court that it was near a Mahua tree, and lastly it is urged that as the prosecution opted to examine only those witnesses who were interested in the cause of the prosecution entirely to the execlusion of independent witnesses, the prosecution case as been rendered unworthy of credence.