KUSHNU BANDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.5.2003 and 3.6.2003 and respectively passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge. Fast Track Court III. Chaibasa. in Sessions Trial No. 166 of 2001/38 of 2003 whereby all the appellants have been held guilty for commission of offences under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and accordingly each of the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Further, the appellants have also been convicted under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution case, in short, is that Sanatan Hembrom (PW 7) informant lodged a written report with the Police on 24.10.2000 at about 1.30 p.m. to the effect that Raimuni (PW 1) had stated before him that the appellant Raghunath Maria had been behaving like a mad person and was saying that he killed somebody and he was roaming with a bhujall On this, the villagers wanted to know as to what had happened. Then, PW 1 Raimuni Devi disclosed on 23.10.2000 that on 15.10.2000, Birendra Purti (deceased) was killed by the appellants behind her house at about 8.10 p.m. and his dead body was thrown in the jungle by them. The appellants also threatened PW 7-informant, PW 3 Sum Hembrom and PW 4 Joma Kui with dire consequences and asked them not to disclose about the occurrence to any body. It was further stated that the deceased was a labour contractor and on the date of occurrence, he along with some persons had come and had taken Haria (country made liquor) and was talking about finding labourers and due to dispute over payment, there was altercation between the parties. During this, the occurrence took place in the courtyard [aangan) of PW 3 Suru Hembrom. where the appellants after assaulting the deceased, killed him and threw his dead body in the jungle. These things were informed to the informant (PW 7) by Raimuni Devi (PW 1). It was alleged in the FIR that the appellants had killed the deceased due to their dispute over payment of money and they had thrown the dead body of the deceased in the jungle in order to conceal evidence.

(3.) On the basis of the said fardbeyan of the informant (PW 7). Goelkera PS Case No. 20 of 2000 was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants who faced the trial and were convicted as aforesaid.