RAMU MANJHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29th June, 1995 and 3.7.1995 respectively passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in connection with Sessions Trial No. 128/30 of 1991 -95, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) PROSECUTION story in brief is that informant Bhagru Manjhi stated before the police that his sister Shanti Devi was married with the appellant Ramu Manjhi of the same village. The informant was working as a Khalasi in a truck. On 20.12.1990 at 10 a.m. he returned to his village and learnt that on the last night his brother -in -law committed murder of his sister by means of tangi. He went to the house of the appellant and found the dead body of his sister lying on a cot in a bedroom with several cut injuries and also blood stains on her face. He came to know from the villagers that accused -appellant made an extra -judicial confession before the villagers Mahabir Manjhi, Koka Manjhi, Mathura Manjhi and others, who had also gone to the house of the appellant and found the dead body of Shanti Devi lying on a cot. Appellant confessed his guilt before the villagers for committing murder of his wife with tangi on account of domestic quarrel. When the villagers tried to arrest him, he fled away towards Jungle under the pretext of going to call of nature. The informant went to the police station on the same day alongwith villagers and lodged the first information report. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge -sheet against the appellant. Witnesses were examined before the trial Court and after hearing both sides the appellant was found to be guilty and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced in the manner as alleged above.

(3.) ACCORDING to the doctor, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by hard and blunt substance on the head and chest. Injury Nos. (i) and (ii) were caused by hard and blunt substance but other injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. He also proved the post mortem report (Ext. 2). He stated in his cross -examination that injury Nos. (i) and (ii) could not have been caused due to fall on hard substance and injury No. (iii) could not have been caused by fall on any pointed object.