BABLOO KISKU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant in this case has been convicted of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted on offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each under two different Courts. However, the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) A case was registered at P.S. Poraiya Hat on 6th February, 1989 at 12.30 p.m. by drawing up a formal F.I.R. on the fardbeyan of one Lumba Murmu son of late Pradhan Murmu of village Baghamara Purabtola. recorded on 5th February, 1989 at 8.30 a.m. in the morning at Deodar P.S. The fardbeyan was recorded by the Sub -Inspector, Mahendra Yadav of Deodar Police Station, The informant stated that in the previous night at about 10.00 a.m., he was sitting in front of house of one Sukul Kisku with Thoka Hansda of the same village. They were sitting of a ridge in front of house of said Sukul Kisku and were talking among themselves. The appellant Babloo Kisku appeared where. He was using abusive language for Sukul Kisku and he asked him as to why he was holding a Panchayat. Sukul Kisku objected to it and forebade him from uttering abusive language on which Babloo Kisku became infuriated and stated that though the palm tree fell to his share, the said Sukul Kisku was claiming share in it. Sukul then told him that it was in his share and the appellant had nothing to do with the palm tree. The appellant then told him that he will cut the palm tree and when Sukul Kisku challenged him, he inflicted a blow in the abdomen of Sukul Kisku with a dagger or knife and Sukul fell on the ground. The informant and Thoka Hansda also tried to intervene and they were inflicted blows with the knife by the appellant and they sustained injuries. In the meanwhile, on hulla, wife and son of the said Sukul Kisku came out from inside the house and they also saw blood -stained knife in the hand of Babloo the appellant and they also raised alarm on which some villagers namely Nikulas Murmu and Raiman Murmu also arrived and they also saw the appellant who ran away. Sukul Kisku died as a result of injuries sustained by him in course of this incident and the matter was then reported to Police and the statement of the informant Lumba (P.W. 2) was recorded in the fardbeyan (Ext. 3). The said Police Officer Mahendra Yadav (P.W. 8) took up investigation after forwarding the fardbeyan to Poraiyahat P.S. for registering a case and he proceeded with the investigation of the case. He went to the P.O., prepared the inquest report of the dead body and sent the same for P.M. Examination and inspected the P.O. and also recorded the statements of some witnesses. He had also searched the house of the appellant and is said to have recovered a sickle (Kachia), from the house of the appellant by preparing a seizure list (Ext. 7). Later, on completion of Investigation, he submitted charge -sheet, on which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session and the trial was taken up before the Sessions Judge, Godda who delivered the judgment and passed order, as stated above.

(3.) It appears to be the case of defence from the trend of cross -examination and the suggestions given to the witnesses for the prosecution that wife of deceased, namely, Malho Tuddu (P.W. 4) had some illicit connection with one Gopal and on this account, she took the informant and P.W. 1 in her collusion and got her husband killed and falsely implicated the appellant in this case. But, the learned trial Court did not accept this theory and relying on the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, he held that appellant guilty of the offence, as stated above, and convicted and sentenced him.