SUDHIR HANSDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s) and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P.

(2.) The aforesaid appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Accordingly, all these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. The appellants Ramu Soren, Samu Soren, Satya Besra and Ruplal Hansda [In Cr. Appeal D.B. No. 83 of 2017] and appellant Sudhir Hansda [In Cr. Appeal D.B. No. 88 of 2017] and appellants Dhalku Soren @ Dholku Soren and Kamoli Murmu @ Komali Murmu [In Cr. Appeal D.B. No. 94 of 2017] have file these appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 22/12/2016 (sentence passed on 23/12/2016), passed by Sri Vijay Kumar-II, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2011, arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 521 of 2010, whereby and wherein, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara held the appellants guilty of offence under Sec. 148/ 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Sec. 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code along with a fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default of payment of fine the appellants were directed to further undergo R.I. for one month. The appellants were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Manohar Hembram alleging therein that on 23/10/2010 at about 10:00 a.m. he along with his family members had gone for fishing in the village pond, when the appellants came there and started assaulting them causing injury to the informant, Robin Hembram, Soren Hembram, Malti Murmu, Haradhan Hansda and Ramni Baski. It is specifically alleged that the appellant Sudhir Hansda gave axe blows to informant Manohar Hembram and Soren Hembram due to which they sustained injuries. Soren Hembram died during the course of treatment. The genesis of the occurrences is that both the parties jointly owned the pond where the informant and his family members were fishing but the appellants did not want to give the informant and others their share in fishing. It has also been stated that a case relating to the ownership of the pond was Sub-Judice before a competent Civil Court.