BUDHU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life thereunder on the charge of committing the murder of Gopal Hazam in furtherance of their common intention, by Sri. L.K. Sahay. 3rd Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, by judgment and order dated 16th May. 1989, passed in S.T. No. 133 of 1988/67 of 1988

(2.) THE prosecution case is as follows: In the evening 2.4.1987 Gopal Hazam, the deceased, at the Instance of appellant Budhu Mahto, In the Company of Duleshwar Bedia (P.W. 5), his co -villager, went to the house of appellant Budhu Mahto situate at village Mahua Tungri, which is at a distance of about a -mile from village Haratu, the native place of the deceased as well as P.W. 5, to reach Sukhua log. All the three had started for village Mahua Tungri around 6 p.m. from the place of Duleshwar Bedia. The Sakhua log had been purchased by appellant Budhu Mahto. When Gopal Hazam and Duleshwar Bedia were returning the late night, appellant Budhu Mahto accompanied them saying that he would reach them upto some distance. When they reached Piyar Bora Jungle, on the way appellant Budhu Mahto gave an axe blow on the back of Gopal Hazam, the deceased who fell down. In the meantime, the appellants Hawra Mahto. Dipnath Mahto and Rati Mahto came out of their hiding argued with axe and dealt several axe blows to the deceased and wounded him severely. Duleshwar Bedia tried to intervene, but he was chased by appellant Budhu Mahto armed with axe, who escaped hiding himself in the forest and ultimately reached this village Haratu and narrated the story to the informant Suresh Hazam, the brother of the deceased, that all the appellant have axed the deceased to death in Piyar Bera Jungle. Thereupon, the informant accompanied by Duleshwar Bedia(P.W. 5) and other villagers went to the forest to found that the deceased was lying dead in pool of blood with face down -ward and there were cut wounds on his body. On the basis of the information derived from Duleshwar Bedia, the Informant lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit 4) about the incident with Sikidiri Police station the next day around 5.30 p.m. On this basis the present case was instituted, a formal first information report (Exhibit 3) was drawn up and after investigation charge -sheet was laid in Court against the appellants.

(3.) THE point which falls for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. to the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.