TILU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, sole appellant Tilu Mahto has assailed the judgment of conviction dtd. 17/9/1994 and order of sentence dtd. 19/9/1994 passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Gupta, learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 1992, arising out of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 03 of 1992 dtd. 1/1/1992, G.R. No. 19 of 1992, whereby the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh has convicted the appellant under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant Jagdish Munda got his statement recorded before the police on 2/1/1992 stating that on 1/1/1992 his brother Sanichar Munda had gone to Karma Kiari near CCL Office where he met the appellant. The appellant asked for his due money from his brother on which there was some exchange of words but after a while the matter subsided and at about 10.00 hours daytime, they both went to Khira Bera Basti and took wine and thereafter returned to the hotel of the appellant. In the hotel, they got eggs prepared and they along with one unknown person sat together in the nearby nursery of the jungle for taking food. The informant further stated that his villagers Raimani, Jaimani, Sumitra Kumari, Sanju, Fulmani, etc. were picking wood in the jungle. They saw that the appellant and another person took Sanichar Munda (deceased) in the mid of the jungle and started assaulting him and cut his neck and abdomen by Farsa. The deceased fell on the earth. The said girls came to their village and told the villagers that appellant Tilu Mahto and other unknown person had cut the neck and abdomen of the deceased by Farsa. Thereupon, the informant and other villagers went to the jungle and saw that neck and abdomen of Sanichar Munda were cut and he had died. In the morning they informed the police and the F.I.R. was registered accordingly. The informant alleged that the occurrence took place due to monetary transactions and he did not know anything more.

(3.) The charge was framed under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 28/9/1992 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.