DOMAN MUNDA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appellants (accused) were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 323/34, IPC for committing murder of Rani @ Sani Mundain, daughter of informant, Dimbu Devi (PW 2). The Trial Court while acquitted both the accused of the alleged charges under Section 323/34, IPC, convicted both the accused for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide impugned judgment dated 30th June, 1997, passed by Sri Ravindra Nath Verma, Additional Judicial Commissioner - Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 673 of 1996/G.R. Case No. 257 of 1995. .

(2.) THE case of prosecution, as per fardbeyan of Dimbu Devi (PW 2), mother of the deceased, Rani Mundain, recorded on 8th May, 1995 at 7 am is that the deceased Rani @ Sani Mundain was living alone in her sasural situated in Village -Bakarberadih under P.S. Arki, District -Ranchi since the death of her husband. She was issueless, informant, mother of deceased had gone to her (deceased) sasural on Tuesday to stay there. On Sunday, she (informant) and her daughter (deceased) had gone to Hemrum hat for purchase and returned in the evening at about 7 pm. When they were busy in cooking fish, on the said Sunday (7th May, 1995) at about 7 pm both the accused persons, namely, Doman Munda and Bhanu Munda suddenly entered into the home of the deceased and started assaulting the deceased, Rani Mundain. When she (informant) intervened to save her daughter (deceased), the accused, Doman Munda also assaulted her on her back and she become senseless. When she regain sense, found her daughter, Rani Mundain lying dead on the place of occurrence. The informant alleged that the accused persons were earlier charging the deceased that she was a 'Dyine' (witch).

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the informant, Dimbu Devi (PW 2), is the mother of the deceased. She is interested witness. There is a major contradiction with her evidence and medical evidence. There is no any evidence to corroborate her statement. There is no evidence to prove the geneses of occurrence, no pre -meditiation on the part of the accused persons or serious enmity between the parties alleged. So far as PW 7, I.O. is concerned, in his testimony though he stated that he prepared injury report of the informant and sent her to the doctor for treatment but the PW 2 -informant did not utter any word regarding her examination by a doctor. Not only this, no injury report of the informant was produced by the prosecution. m