JOHN HANSDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12th July, 2007, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in connection with Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2005/26 of 2006, arising out of Boarijore (Lalmatia) P.S. Case No. 135/2003 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1273/2003 whereby and where under the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and accordingly sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The facts emerging from the record available before us is that on 17.12.2003 at about 3.00 p.m. Hakim Murmu (deceased) and Surya Narayan Hansda were working in their potato fields situated near their house. In the mean time the appellants, with their associates armed with pistol and musket (kind of country made fire arm), appeared and chased Hakim and Surya Narayan with intention to kill them. The duo in order to save their lives ran from the place but after covering distance up to one kilometer, at a place near village New Bhoraitola Hakim Murmu was overpowered but Surya Narayan somehow escaped. Hakim Murmu was shot at by one of the accused Kloud Kisku as a result he died at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by the informant Beta Ram Murmu who happens to be brother of the deceased and his fardbeyan was recorded on 17.12.2001 at 16.00 hours at the place of occurrence on the basis of which Boarijor (Lalmatia) P.S. Case No. 135 of 2003 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the appellants, other named accused and 2-3 unknown persons. During investigation these appellants were apprehended whereas other accused remained absconding and therefore, the appellants were chargesheeted to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The appellants had denied the charges framed under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and hence put on trial. The prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses and proved documents and material exhibits to substantiate the charges whereas 3 witnesses have been examined on behalf of defence. The prosecution witnesses are Mangal Murmu PW-1, Janjin Hansda PW-2, Kisto Pandit PW-3, Dr. Dilip Kumar Choudhary PW-4, Pakku Kisku PW-5, Stifan Murmu PW-6, Nilmani Murmu PW-7, Beta Ram Murmu (informant) PW-8, Bishnu Rajan (I.O.) PW-9 and Vijay Bhushan Minj (formal witness) PW-10. The material witnesses on the facts are PW-1, PW-2 PW-5, PW-7 and informant PW-8. Kisto Pandit PW-3 has been declared hostile and Vijay Bhushan Minj PW-10 is a formal witness.

(3.) The sum and substance of the evidences adduced by aforesaid material witnesses is that on 17.12.2003 in the afternoon while Hakim Murmu and Surya Narayan Hansda were working in their potato field, they were chased by the appellants and their associates who were armed with pistol and musket. Both of them ran towards village New Bhodaitola to save their lives but Hakim Murmu was overpowered on the road near New Bhodaitola whereas Surya Narayan Hansda escaped. The appellants and their associates had surrounded Hakim Murmu and a shot from close range was fired by accused Kloud causing a wound of entry and wound of exit near the temporal region and Hakim Murmu died at the spot.