CHAMRA LAGURI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th September, 2003 passed by Shri S.N. Prasad, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 2002 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 and sentenced to undergo R.I. 'for life. Prosecution case in short is that Sonu Laguri (P.W.-10) lodged fardbeyan before the police on 13.10.2001 at 12.30 in the day that on previous day i.e. on 12.10.2001 at about 3 p.m. there was 'Puja' in the house of Supal Laguri (P.W.-4) where he along with his younger brother Mahabir Laguri (deceased) and Pratap Laguri (deceased) were present. All the three brothers were taking 'Hadia'. At about 4 p.m. they were called by their neighbour Kolai Laguri (P.W.-7) for taking 'Hadia'. When they were sitting outside the house of P.W.-7, the appellants along with their two brothers Soma Laguri (absconding) and Kita Mohan Laguri (absconding) came and surrounded them. They were armed with bow, arrow and tangi. Appellant-Chamra Laguri targeted arrow at the informant. The informant fled away and concealed in the house of P.W.-7. The informant saw through the gap in the door that Soma Laguri and Chamra Laguri (appellant) injured Pratap Laguri by shooting arrow due to which he fell and then both of them together cut his neck. Similarly, Mahabir Laguri was assaulted by Singrai Laguri (appellant) and Kita Mohan Laguri by shooting arrow and then after chasing him about 400 yards both the accused persons cut the neck of Mahabir Laguri. Then they waited for informant to come out from the house for killing him. In the meantime, at about 5 p.m. Sumitra Laguri (P.W.-9) and her two daughters came weeping to the house of P.W.-7 where they saw the accused persons sitting there and who fled away on seeing them. The informant learnt from the wife and daughter of Mahabir Laguri that all the accused persons killed his two younger brothers. Madho Purty (P.W.-8) and Sumi Kui (P.W.-14) have seen the occurrence. On previous day, at about 6.30 a.m., Pratap Laguri was making Khalihan ready due to which all the accused persons chased them with 'Danda' on which the informant party fled away to their house. After some time, when the informant party came to the field they saw all the four accused persons ploughing their land which belongs to the informant party on which the informant party were doing cultivation. It is alleged that for the said land dispute the accused persons have killed the two brothers of the informant.

(2.) Mr. R.C. Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted as follows:-

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the witnesses have fully corroborated each other. There are independent eye witnesses also. Doctor has also corroborated the prosecution case. On minor contradiction, the prosecution case can not be brushed aside. There is no reason for falsely implicating the accused persons. Two other brothers of the appellants are absconding. After carefully going through the records and hearing the parties at length, in our opinion the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Manner of occurrence has been clearly proved by the witnesses including the medical evidence. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 & 6 are witnesses to the inquest and seizure of blood stained soil. P.Ws. 4, 11 & 13 are heresay witnesses but they have supported the prosecution case. P.W.-12 is an eye witness to the first part of the occurrence when he saw Chamra Laguri and Soma Laguri chasing Mahabir Laguri and informed about it to the wife of Mahibir Laguri/ P.W.-5, the doctor has conducted the postmortem of both the deceased. His evidence fully supports and corroborates the manner and time of occurrence. P.W.-15 is investigating officer, P.Ws 7, 8 & 14 are independent eye witnesses. P.W.-10, the informant, is brother of two deceased and is an eye witnesses at least to the first part of the occurrence i.e. chasing of the deceased by the accused persons and killing of Pratap Laguri by Chamra Laguri with Tangi. The witnesses have confirmed the presence of one or other eye witnesses. They have fully supported the prosecution case. There is nothing in the cross-examination to discredit them. On the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Khatri, the prosecution case can not be disbelieved. Some minor variations are natural due to the time gap between the occurrence and the evidence. The informant clearly said that he informed the police, the police came and recorded the statement near the place of occurrence. There is nothing on the record to suggest false implication of the appellants.