HURKUKUMHAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Sessions Trial No. 544/86, appellant No. 1 Hurku Kumhar had been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; and appellant No. 2 Bisam Kumhar had been convicted under Section 324 of the same Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Against their conviction and sentences, both the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 14.3.1986 PW 6 Aghnu Kumhar of village Sahdih-Marangpiri within Adki police station in the district of Ranchi had gone to Doreya Bazar accompanied by his wife Sabitri Devi. While returning from the bazar, they reached inside Pipra-kocha jungle at bout 5 in the evening. The appellants and 12 others including one Barjo Kumhar of the same village, who were hiding themselves behind bushes, accosted them. The appellants and Barjo Kumhar were armed with tablas (heavy-cutting weapons). Their remaining companions were carrying lathis. As soon as they emerged from behind the bushes (sic) Kumhar struck the said Aghnu Kumhar by means of tabla on the head followed by Barjo Kumhar whose weapon (tabla) hit one of the fingers of right hand of Aghnu Kumhar. In the meantime, appellant No. 1 struck Sabitri Devi on her neck by means of tabla cutting the neck. She fell down Thereafter, other accused-persons also started inflicting blows on her person by means of tabla. Some passers-by who were returning from the bazar, happened to reach there and raised alarm. Consequently, the assailants including these appellants fled inside the jungle. PW 6 remained inside the jungle throughout the night with his wife who had succumbed to the injuries. Next morning, a Sub-Inspector of Adki Police Station reached there and recorded his fardbeyan (Ext. 4) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ext. 3) was drawn and a case under Sections 341, 325, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the police station situated about 10 kms. west of the place of occurrence. Inquest on the dead-body was also held in presence of witnesses and dead-body sent to Sub-divisional Hospital at Khunti where post-mortem was held. According to the first informant, since his parents-in-law had no male issue, they had transferred their entire immovable properties to deceased Sabitri Devi to the dislike of accused Barjo Kumhar (since dead) and the latter was threatening with dire consequences and was determined to drive them away from the village. The determing accused-persons including appellants were his relatives and supporters.

(3.) On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against all the 14 accused-persons under Sections 147,148, 324, 302 and 307, IPC. As two of the accused-persons were juvenile, their trial was separated for being tried by a Juvenile Court and the remaining 12 accused-persons framed charges under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 307 read with Section 149, IPC against all the accused-persons. Separate charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against appellants Hurku and Bisam Kumhar respectively. A separate charge under Section 324, IPC was also framed against Barjo Kumhar. In course of trial, accused Barjo Kumhar and Chhetro Mohan Kumhar died. Therefore, only 10 of the accused-persons including these appellants faced full trial. The accused-persons denied the allegations and pleaded false implication due to enmity and land dispute.