LAWS(JHAR)-2011-8-6

GHASHIYA MUNDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On August 18, 2011
GHASHIYA MUNDA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9-12-2003 and 20-12-2003 respectively, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 487 of 2000, convicting the appellants under Sections 396/397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life under Section 396 IPC; and 10 years R.I. under Section 397 IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that Pradeep Prasad Sahu (informant-P. W-2) gave fardbeyan at 3 a.m. on 7-6-1997 that in the last night, when he and his family members were sleeping in the house, at about 11.30- 12.00 on the crying of his father (Radhika Sahu-deceased), he opened the door. In the meantime, 10-12 dacoits entered into the house and started to assault him and his father. On "hulla", his elder brother (Raj Kumar Sahu-deceased) also came out and 3-4 dacoits took him outside the house and assaulted him. due to which he fell down unconscious. THEy demanded money and jewellery. Out of fear, the informant gave the keys of Almirah. THE dacoits took away ornaments, utensils, clothes and Rs.35,000/- cash. THEy also assaulted other members of the family. After departure, two dacoits came back and committed murder of his brother-Raj Kumar Sahu and then committed murder of his father Radhika Sahu by tangi. All the dacoits then ran away with looted articles. THEy were in 30-35 in number. All were looking like Adiwashi and were speaking local and Hindi language. One of the dacoits was aged about 13-14 years. THE dacoits had covered their face by cloth. THEy were armed with tangi, lathi and sword. Out of the dacoits, the appellants were identified in the light of the lantern. While running away, the appellants told that they had already killed two persons and one person escaped.

(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned order.