MANGARA ORAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY Court. -This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.6.2004 and order of sentence dated 17.6.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -II, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No. 99 of 2002/Sessions Trial No. 236 of 2002 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life u/s 302/34 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years u/s 307/34 I.P.C. However, both the sentences were run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that Smt. Tara Devi (informant -P.W.1 -eye witness) lodged Fardbeyan on 14.6.2000 at about 8.45 that about 7.00 A.M., she alongwith her younger daughter Sarita Devi P.W. 2 and alongwith her husband Peeru Rai (deceased) went out of the house to search their ox. But, suddenly appellant Sakhi Rai having Barchi in his hand, appellant Mangara Oraon having an axe and accused Mohan Rai having Basula in his hand, came running to kill her husband. Her husband ran to save his life and entered in the house of his daughter Pinki Devi (P.W. 3), but all the three accused persons chased and caught him in the Angan of P.W. 3. The appellant Mangara Oraon assaulted Peeru Rai by axe on his head causing bleeding injuries, due to which, he fell down. Then, appellant, Sakhi Rai assaulted on his cheek by Barcha causing bleeding injury, then Mohan Rai assaulted him by Basula on his back. The informant reached there to save her husband, but, appellant Sakhi Rai assaulted her by a brick lying there causing her injuries. Her husband died on the spot. Due to fear, her daughters Sarita Devi and Pinki Devi started raising alarm, on which, people assembled there, then the accused persons fled away. It was alleged that cause of incident was an old enmity over land. There was also a proceeding u/s 107 Cr. P.C. pending between the parties. On the previous day, when the informant party were ploughing their field, the appellants threatened the workers and forcibly took away the ox and plough. The informant was treated in the hospital.

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