SURJA MUNDA AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appellants have been convicted under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the Code") and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted under Sec. 201 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Appellant Suraj Munda has been further convicted under Sec. 323 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution case, as narrated by the informant, Lalku Mahto (P.W. 2), is that on 24.1.1980 in the evening the informant had gone to the house of Mahanti for dinner. After dinner he along with Bihari, Jainath and Somra was returning. Mahanti came up to road to see them off. On the road these two appellants along with one Roket were there from before. The deceased Bihari asked the appellant Surja Munda, to oblige him with drink popularly called as Haria. Surja Munda replied that he had no money. Bihari (the deceased ) then said that he had money. He would pay the price thereof. Therefore, he requested them to go for drink; Thereafter, the informant, Bihari (the deceased), Jainath, Somra, these two appellants and accused Roket went to the house of Fakira and there they took Haria. Thereafter, they all went to the house of village chaukidar to attend a marriage function. At the house of the chaukidar children were playing and dancing. These persons also participated in that dance. At that very time appellant Surja Munda went away from that place thereafter informant and his companions left for their houses. Mahanti again came along with the informant and his party up to the road to sec them off. Mahanti returned and the informant and his associates proceeded ahead. Appellant Surja Munda soon thereafter came and said "Mahanti Bula raha hai". Thereafter, the deceased, Bihari, and the informant returned with appellant Surja Munda. At that very time appellant James is alleged to have assaulted the deceased, Bihari, with Bhujali on his face. The informant protested on which appellant Surja hit the informant with Bhujali on his back. On being assaulted the informant fled away and due to fear concluded himself near the bank of a river. In the next morning he went to the village and to the house of Mohan who is brother of deceased Bihari. He enquired from Mohan about Bihari. Mohan told him that Bihari had not returned and, thereafter, he told about the occurrence to Mohan, Then again he came back to village Nagri along with Mohan and others. On the way the appellant, Surja Munda, seeing the informant and his companions tried to run away but he was caught hold of. After his arrest appellant Surja Munda told them that he along with James Toppo, and Roket (acquitted accused) had killed the deceased Bihari and had concealed the dead body. This appellant took the informant and his companions to the place where the dead body was kept. Thereafter, Surja Munda was taken to the Police Station and P.W. 2 (the informant) lodged a case on the basis of which a regular case was instituted against these two appellants and accused Roket.

(2.) After investigation charge -sheet was submitted against these two appellants and accused Roket. All the three accused were put on trial where 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Appellants denied the allegation and pleaded their innocence. Their further case appears to be that they have been falsely implicated in this case. After considering the entire evidence the learned trying court convicted these two appellants as stated above and acquitted the accused, Roket.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the prosecution has not brought correct picture of the case in the court. He has further argued that the confession alleged to have been made by appellant Surja Munda is purely a myth and the story of recovery of the dead body at the instance of appellant Surja Munda is also false. According to him no reliance should be placed on the evidence of P.W.