MOTI GANJHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.V., Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 188/95, whereby these two appellants have been convicted vide order dated 28th October, 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and they are punished vide order dated 29th October, 2003 for life imprisonment and are liable to make payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each. Against this judgment and order of conviction, present appeal has been preferred by both the appellants.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 18.09.1994 at 12.00 hrs the informant Ganesli Ganjhu (P.W. -6) gave fardbeyan to police that on previous night i.e. on 17.09.1994 at 8:00 p.m. his son Mahavir Manjhi (deceased) was distributing Prasad in the village and in the meantime informant saw that his co -villager Moti Ganjhu and Chhoti Ganjhu were dragging his son toward their house and thereupon the informant, his brother Ganjana Ganjhu and his sister Madia Devi came running to the house of Moti Ganjhu and saw that Moti Ganjhu and Chhoti Ganjhu were assaulting informant son Mahavir Ganjhu with Lathi and when informant tried to save his son and raised nulla then they assaulted Shanti Kumari with lathi and run away from there. Thereafter informant saw his son lying in the house of Moti Ganjhu and blood was coming out from his body. The informant further alleged that reason for occurrence is previous enmity between the deceased Mahavir Ganjhu and accused persons.

(3.) WE have heard counsel for the State -APP, who has mainly submitted that no error has been committed by the Trial Court in appreciating the evidences of Prosecution Witnesses. The case of the prosecution is based upon more than one eye -witness and they are PW -2, PW -3, PW -4, PW -5 and PW -6. The incident has taken place on 17th September, 1994. Fardbeyan was recorded by PW -6, who is the father of the deceased and the FIR has also been lodged immediately. These two appellants have been named in the FIR. Enough details have been given in the FIR by PW -6, including names of other witnesses. It is also submitted by APP, looking to the depositions of PW -2, PW -3, PW -4, PW -5 and PW -6, that they have clearly narrated the role played by these two appellants in causing murder of the deceased. On the date of occurrence, these two appellants dragged the deceased at the house of Moti Ganju and there he was severely beaten by these two appellants one by lathi and another by pressing the chest of the deceased Mahavir Ganju, as a result of which he expired on the spot - that was a Puja day. Immediately, persons, who are eye -witnesses and seen the incident, have caught Moti Ganjhu red -handed. Chhoti Ganjhu ran away and he was arrested later on. It is submitted by APP that there are minor omissions, contradictions and improvements in the deposition of these witnesses because date of occurrence is 17th September, 1994, whereas they are giving their depositions after approximately about thirty -six months. Looking to the depositions of these witnesses, it has been consistently stated by these witnesses that appellant No. 2 Chhoti Ganju has caused injury by lathi and appellant No. 1 Moti Ganjhu pressed the chest of the deceased. But looking to the deposition given by PW -1 Dr. A. Ganguli, who has carried out post -mortem on the body of the deceased, has observed several injuries and opined that they were caused by lathi and by pressing the chest. This deposition is getting enough corroboration by the medical evidence given by PW -1. It is further submitted by APP that the investigating officer has been examined as PW -8. He has proved Fardbeyan, FIR including Panchnama, place of occurrence, and manner of occurrence as narrated by the prosecution witnesses when he recorded the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is corroborated to the depositions given by the eye -witnesses and no error has been committed by the Trial Court in appreciating these evidences. The prosecution has proved the offence of murder of Mahavir Ganjhu committed by these two appellants beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, this appeal may not be entertained by this Court.