SUSERAN SOY Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both two connected appeals have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment as they arise from a common order/ judgment.

(2.) Both Criminal appeals are preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 23.8.2003 and order of sentence dated 25.8.2003 passed by Sri. Raghubar Dayal, Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC No. II Chaibasa in S.T. No. 109 of 2001 whereby the appellants along with others have been convicted under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life each for the offence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The prosecution story, which has arisen on the basis of the Fardbayan of the informant, Surendra Soy (P.W.1) recorded before Kashi Kujur S.I P.S. Muffasil on 17.4.2000 at about 11.00 p.m., in short was that the informant was working at Tata Telco and he came at village Tontohansai at about 10.00 a.m. from Tata to his house on 17.4.2000. It was alleged that there was land dispute with regard to the partition of land with his brother Krishna. Soy from before and partition of the land between two brothers took place in the last year due to which his elder brother and nephew were dissatisfied with the proportion of share provided which according to them should be more than the family of deceased who was having small family compare to their large family and as a result of which from time to time there were altercation between two families. Wife of the informant along with two sons of the informant lived at her house, which is the place of occurrence and looked after the cultivation. There was a common Angan (compound) between the informant and his brother. The informant alleged that in his absence there was dispute between his wife and his Bhabhi and they were not having talking terms. On 17.4.2000 at about 8.00 p.m. while the informant was having meal by sitting in the Angan (compound), his nephew Surendra Soy, Sushaeran Soy and their servant Remo Gope having armed with khanjar suddenly attacked on the informant. On that situation the informant run away and entered into room leaving his meal. At that time, about three accused persons attacked on his wife Savitri Soy, who was sitting on the cot in the Angan (compound), and they pull down her on the earth and khanjar blow was given on her neck as a result of which she sustained cut injury on her neck. They also assaulted on her Kanpatti and her right arm due to which she sustained injury. Thereafter the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. It was further alleged that on hearing alarm raised by the informant and his son, villagers assembled there. In the meantime, his wife died on account of serious blow given by the accused persons. He apprised Munda of the village, who came on receiving the information about the occurrence and he accompanied the informant to the police station where the statement of the informant was recorded and the same was read over and explained to him. On the basis of the statement made before the police, Muffasil P.S. Case No. 28 of 2000 was registered under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet bearing no. 34 of 2000 was submitted against the named accused persons and cognizance of the offence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the accused persons. After taking cognizance the case was committed to the court of Sessions and on completion of trial by the Session's court the statement of the accused persons was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the judgment was delivered by the learned Sessions Judge.