MAHLI BHENGRA @ MANISH BHENGRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.3.2003 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV, Khunti Sessions Trial No. 505 of 2001, convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. A fine of Rs. 25,000/- has also been imposed out of which Rs. 20,000/- was to be given to the family of the deceased, failing which the appellant was to undergo R.I. for further two years. The prosecution case in short is that P.W. 8 Saniaro Bhengra lodged her Fardbeyan before the police on 9.6.2001 that at about 12 noon, when she and her parents came out of the house after taking meal, the appellant, who is the villager, came with an axe and call her mother witch and started assaulting on her head. Her mother started crying and fell on the ground with Needing injures and died. When her father came out of the house, the appellant started assaulting him also due to which he ran but he was chased by the appellant and he again assaulted her father on his head as a result of which father of the informant also died.

(2.) Learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the informant said that the police came after two days of occurrence, but she gave her fardbeyan on the same day before police. She further stated that she gave her fardbeyan in Mundari language, whereas the I.O. said that it was given in Sadri language. Moreover, the place of occurrence has not been properly explained by P.W. 8. He further submitted that the informant did not say about repeated injuries, but several injuries have been found by the Doctors-P.W. 1 and P.W. 7 on the persons of two deceased. Moreover, P.W. 7 found the death was caused due to head injury caused by blunt heavy weapon with additional pressure on neck, but such additional pressure on the neck has not been explained by the prosecution. He further submitted that two persons could not be killed by one person with several injuries to both of them. He lastly submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for 11 years and he should be given benefit of doubt.

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