MEDO MANJHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant has been convicted under Sections 364 and 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for life respectively, by the 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Munger, vide his order dated 11th January, 1996, in Sessions case No. 383/91. Accused -appellant Medo Manjhi and co -accused Tejo Manjhi were facing trial before the Court below, but subsequently, since Tajo Manjhi absconded, his trial was separated.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief is that the informant Babulal Manjhi, P.W. 1, in his fardbeyan, Ext. 2, recorded on 21 -1 -90, at 12 noon by the Officer -Incharge, Dharahra Police Station, district Munger, -stated that on 20/21 -1 -90, at about 12 in the night, while he was sleeping in his house, appellant Medo Manjhi and accused Tejo Manjhi came to the house and started awakening his son Suresh Manjhi, the deceased. They asked his son to return back the wrist watch, which he had stolen earlier. Suresh Manjhi denied and stated that he had not stolen any wrist watch. Thereupon, an altercation took place and the informant intervened and defended his son. Thereafter, both the accused -persons left the place after threatening him. It is the further case of the prosecution that both the accused immediately returned back armed with Tengari' and 'Farsa' and again demanded wrist watch from the deceased Suresh Manjhi. Both of them dragged the deceased towards the village. The informant then raised hulla, but none of the villager turned up. However, the informant and the family members did not follow the accused -persons out of fear. In the morning at about 4 a.m., the informant along with the village Chowkidar enquired from the accused -persons the whereabouts of his son Suresh Manjhi. They replied that they had left his son in Bilokhar. On further query, appellant Medo Manjhi told the informant that his son, Suresh Manjhi, has been cut to death. The informant with the help of the Chowkidar made search of his son and recovered his dead -body in the field of Nepali Singh in mouza Sikranpur. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Dharahra P.S. case No. 4/90 was registered and after submission of the charge -sheet the trial proceeded in the Court below. The defence case is the denial of the involvement of the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant has been falsely implicated because of the enmity and the son of the informant, Suresh Manjhi, being a criminal was killed by some one else.

(3.) The prosecution, in all examined, 6 witnesses; out of which, Babulal Manjhi, P.W. 1, the informant is father of the deceased. Gogni Devi, P.W. 2, is the grand -mother of the deceased. P.W. 3, Bansi Manjhi, is another family member of the deceased, who was sleeping along with the deceased in the same house in that night. P.W. 4, Bhamo Devi is the mother of the deceased. P.W. 5, Indradeo Pd. Singh is a formal witness, who has proved, fardbeyan Ext. 2, and the inquest report, Ext. 4 P.W. 6, Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, conducted the post -mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.