SOHAN MANJHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Sohan Manjhi stands convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Kutlu Sikalkar. He was a snake-charmer by profession.

(2.) The prosecution case was that Kutlu Sikalkar along with his wife Surpi Sikalkar (P. W. 8) and three small children had come to village Heven, Police Station Nimdih in the district of Singhbhum on a Thursday before the date of occurrence for the purpose of begging by showing snake charming performance. On 11-5-1965, which was a Tuesday, in the morning, Sohan Manihi took Kutlu Sikalkar, his wife and children to his house and gave them 'Handia' (liquor) to drink. While they were drinking 'Handia', Sohan Manihi proposed that one daughter of the victim should cultivate friendship with his daughter. He further proposed that he would keep the wife of the victim with himself. Kutlu Sikalkar told his wife Surpi Sikalkar (P. W. 8), "Sohan Manjhi wants to keep you." On this, Surpi Sikalkar replied that Sohan Manihi was neither his castcman nor relation and, as such, who he was to keep her. After taking 'Handia', Kutlu Sikalkar along with his family members came back to the mango tree where they were living. Sohan Manihi also came following them with a small dunta about two cubits in length. Without speaking anything, Sohan Manjhi save dunta blows to Kutlu Sikalkar which hit him on the right side of the head and other parts of the body. Hulla was raised. Several persons arrived and witnessed the occurrence. As a result of the iniuries received. Kutlu Sikalkar died at the spot. Surpi Sikalkar informed the Mukhia and the Chaukidar who came and saw the dead body. Mukhia Madan Manjhi (P. W. 9) sent Surpi Sikalkar along with the Chaukidar to Nimdih Police Station, where her fardbeyan was recorded that very day at about 4 p. m. by the Officer-in-charge Bharat Dasandhi (P. W. 11). On the basis of that fardbeyan, formal F. I. R. was drawn up at Chandil Police station. The Offlcer-in-charge (P. W. 11) started for the place of occurrence reaching there at 8-30 p. m. He held inquest on the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. He examined witnesses and after completing investigation, submitted chargesheet against this appellant who was put on trial.

(3.) The defence was that the accused did not commit any offence and that he was falsely implicated at the instance of other persons.