PACHE @ PACHCHEPALI KERAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.10.2003 and 16.10.2003 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. FTC1, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2000 whereby all the appellants have been held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/149 and 148. IPC and accordingly convicted under Sections 302/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of rupees five thousand each and in default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further six months. They are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offences punishable under Section 148, IPC. However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, in short, is that Sanatan Kerai (PW 3) lodged information with the Police that he learnt that his mother, wife and child have been killed. When he came to the village, he heard that in the last night, all the accused persons named in the FIR along with others, went to the house of the informant at about 10 -11 p.m. and asked for liquor. When the informant PW 3 came out of his house, he was caught by the accused persons and was taken towards the football ground. Sanatan (PW 3) started crying. The accused persons killed PW 3, his mother Kuni Kerai, his wife Gita Puspa Sundi and his two years old child Walter Kerai with sharp cutting weapons. The accused persons while committing murder of the deceased said that now the deceased would not be able to dispossess them from the land/field. The accused persons also looted house hold articles and the grocery shop situated in the house. There was a meeting in the village for continuing sports on the land of Sanatan Kerai, but he wanted to cultivate it and, in fact, he recently did cultivation and removed the goal posts (poles) fixed in the ground, where the accused persons used to play football.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. It is submitted that there is no eye -witness to the killing of all the four deceased persons. They further submitted that the conviction is based on the evidence of PW 4 only, who is a relative of the deceased. She (PW 4) is an interested witness. She could not identify the appellants from distance of 30 -ft in the night. Her identification is doubtful. Persons residing in nearby houses were not examined. They further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants.