DHANU NAPIT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa camp, at Seraikeila. The accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further directed that both the sentences would run concunently.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that on 28.08.1985 at village Pilit. P.S. Ichagarh, District Singhbhum, the informant-Laxman Napit along with his brother, mother, sister and his father (the deceased Motilal Napit) were in their courtyard. In the meantime, the accused-appellants, along with other co-accused, namely, Dinesh Napit, Bhagirathi Napit and Shashi Napit came at the courtyard. The accused-appellants were holding Farsa in their hands whereas the other co-accused were holding Lathis in their hands and immediately after reaching at the place of occurrence, the appellant-Dhanu Napit began to abuse Motilal Napit, the father of the informant, (the deceased). Motilal Napit had objected on the action of the appellants as well as the co-accused. Thereupon the accused-appellants started assaulting Motilal Napit, the father of the informant with 'Farsa' on the head which they were holding in their hands. Consequently, his father sustained injuries and fell down on the ground. The informant immediately came at the spot to rescue his father, whereupon the appellants as well as other co-accused also assaulted him with weapons which they were holding in their hands. The said incident was witnessed by Ganshi Munda, Butlu Burhan and the female members of his family who were present at the place of occurrence. After the alleged occurrence, the accused appellants as well as the other co-accused fled away from the place of the occurrence. Subsequently, a compounder was called for the treatment of father of the informant-Motilal Napit. The matter was reported to the police on the next day at about 9.30 A.M and the police started the investigation: After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella who took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of sessions to stand their trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused appellants as well as other co-accused persons. The accused appellants had -denied the charges and claimed that there was a quarrel between the female members of the two family with regard to the space of 'Gali.'

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses viz P.W.1- Manjulata Devi, the wife of P.W.5, P.W.2 - Khirod Napit, P.W.3 - Dhaneshwar Mahato , P.W.4 - Gaur Singh, P.W.5 - Laxman Napit, P.W.6 -Dr. R.K. Sharma who has conducted the Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, P.W.7-Mohan Lal Mahato has proved the First Information Report lodged by the informant, P.W.4 is the hostile witness and he had not supported the prosecution. According to the prosecution, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 are said to be the eye witness of the incidence.