SUKHRAM BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -Sukhram Bhagat, stands convicted under Sec. 302 of the IPC and also sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and for three years under Sec. 324 of the IPC. As per Ext. 5, the fardbeyan of Munni Devi (PW 2), at about 4 p.m. on 20.5.1992 at village Tan -ghadih, P.S. Dumri, Dist. Gumla, her husband, Lunga Sai Bhagat (deceased) was returning back along with his two minor sons Shekhar Bhagat aged about 5 years and Alok Bhagat aged about 6 years, from the Basa river, after fishing some fishes and carrying a net of fishing as also a small bucket. At that time she was throwing manure in her filed, by carrying the manure in a basket. When her husband reached west of the village near Kathal tree then Sukhram Bhagat, son of Dhanu Bhagat, who happens to be a nephew in village relation, came with a lathi and when he reached near her husband then her husband asked him as to where he was going. Sukhram Bhagat did not reply and gave three lathi blows on the head of her husband. Her husband fell down on the ground and Sukhram again gave a lathi blow on the head of her husband. She started making hulla and ran to snatch the lathi but Sukhram Bhagat ran away. The cause of assault is that her husband had taken lands of Mahabir Bhagat on Adhbatai and Sukhram Bhagat was asking for the said land from her husband to earn money. Since Lunga Sai (deceased) had refused to give land, he was angry with him. Due to the aforesaid reason, taking the advantage of the situation and with an intention to cause death, the accused assaulted her husband on the head and caused grievous injuries. At the time of recording of the fardbeyan her husband was lying senseless in the hospital. On hulla Tele Bhagat (PW 4) and Pukku Bhagat (PW 3) came there who carried her husband to the hospital. In the last portion of the fardbeyan it is stated that this is her statement which has been read over and explained to her and after finding the same correct, she had put her LTI. This fardbeyan was recorded by Md. Moiuddin, Officer -in -Charge (PW 7). It transpires that in the morning of the said night Lunga Sai Bhagat died. The I.O. prepared the inquest report (Ext. 4), which contains the signature of Ramsahay Bhagat and Raitu Bhagat (Exts. 2 and 2/1). It also transpires that post -mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased on 21.5.1992 by Dr. Thomas Justice Minz (PW 6), who proved the same as Ext. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan a formal FIR (Ext. 1) was drawn up under Ss. 302, 324 and 307 of the IPC against the appellant.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the defence has submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and he is innocent though in his statement under Sec. 313, Cr PC. he has stated that for proving his defence who witnesses have been examined. The only evidence is the evidence of the eye -witness, who is the wife of the deceased (PW 2). She has not stated the same thing in her evidence what was stated by her in the fardbeyan (Ext. 5). A changed version has been introduced in her evidence that when the appellant arrived, her husband asked him as to where he was going. The appellant went ahead and then from behind he gave lathi blow. She has also admitted in her cross -examination that this statement has also been given before the I.O. No other witness is there to corroborate her either on the point of seeing Sukhram Bhagat assaulting the deceased or is going away from thereafter assault. Other two witnesses (PWs 3 and 4), have only gone to the P.O. and seen the deceased lying on the ground senseless and brought him to home. PWs 3, 4 and 5 have said that they came to know about the occurrence at the P.O. and Munni Devi told to them that Sukhram had assaulted her husband.

(3.) THE defence has seriously challenged the conviction and sentence and argued that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. The reason for saying so by the defence is that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case. The evidence of the PW 2, informant, has not been corroborated by any independent or circumstantial evidence. It is stated in the fardbeyan that the deceased was carrying fishes, the bucket and the net for fishing but nothing was recovered by the I.O, from the P.O. It appears that the I.O. visited the place of occurrence on the following day. He did not find even bucket or fishing net.