PANDRA MANJHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 27th January, 2004 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No.58 of 1999 whereby the present appellant -accused has been punished for an offence under Section 302 of the India Penal Code for life imprisonment and also under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for one year's simple imprisonment. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against this judgment, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that PW.6 Cheto Manjhi has given his fardbeyan on 28th September, 1998 before the police that on 27th September, 1998 at about 4.30 p.m. when his brother Lepa Manjhi was at his residence along with his wife and son, the present appellant along with another co -accused Daswa Manjhi came at the house of the deceased and they told Lepa Manjhi that his wife is playing witchcraft to the wife of Daswa Manjhi and, therefore, she has become ill and, therefore, they started beating with lathi Lepa Manjhi so severely that he expired on the spot. Upon recording of this fardbeyan, First Information Report was lodged. The case was investigated, several statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions being Sessions Trial Case No.58 of 2009 and upon evidences available on record from depositions given by PW.1 to PW.7 and also on the basis of documentary evidences, i.e. Ext.1, Ext.2 and Ext.3, the learned trial Court has convicted this appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 for life imprisonment for causing murder of the deceased. This appellant has also been punished for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for one year's simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and, therefore, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No.58 of 1999 dated 27th January, 2004.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel counsel appearing for the State -APP who has mainly submitted that the offence of murder of Lepa Manjhi has taken place in his house on 27th September, 1998 at about 4.30 p.m. and there are more than one eyewitnesses of the incident. PW.1 is the son of the deceased, PW.2 is the wife of the deceased and, PW.6 is the brother of the deceased, who is also the informant of this case. It is submitted by the counsel for the State -APP that looking to the depositions of these three eyewitnesses, they have clearly narrated the role played by the appellant in causing murder of the deceased. All these witnesses have stated before the learned trial Court that on 27th September, 1998 at about 4.30 p.m., the present appellant as also the another co -accused namely Daswa Manjhi came at the house of Lepa Manjhi and they assaulted with lathi and Lepa Manjhi was so severely beaten that he expired on the spot. PW.6 has given his fardbeyan before the police and on the basis of this fardbeyan, First Information Report was lodged. It is submitted by the counsel for the State -APP that looking to cross -examination of these three eyewitnesses, their examination -in -chief remained intact as it is. They have supported fully the case of the prosecution and their deposition is also getting enough corroboration by the deposition given by the Investigating Officer, who is PW.7 who has investigated the whole case and looking to the fardbeyan at Ext.1, Post Mortem Report at Ext.2 and the First Information Report at Ext.3, there is enough corroboration to the deposition given by the eyewitnesses who are PW.1, PW.2 and PW.6. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting this appellant and imposing the minimum punishment for the murder of the deceased and, hence, appeal may not been entertained by this Court.