SUNDER SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present case if based on fardbayan of informant-Savitri Kumari recorded on 6/1/2000 alleging therein that her father Deonath Paswan had gone to Ranchi in connection with some court work promising to return back by night. The informant, her mother and aunt (phuwa) were waiting for his arrival holding lantern in their hands near the house of one Gurucharan Sao where Deonath Paswan got down from the bus at around 8:30 p.m. It is further alleged that the accused persons are of her village among whom Sundar Sao armed with sword, Pritivi Singh armed with Farsa, Karu Sao armed with lathi, Chotan Singh armed with knife, Narsingh Singh armed with lathi, Degan Mahto armed with farsa, Rajesh Singh armed with Gandasa, Manger Mahto armed with Bhala, Gurucharan Sao armed with Bhujali, Sitan Paswan armed with Gandasa, Mahabir Paswan armed with lathi, Kauleshwar Yadav armed with lathi, Gugeshwar Mahto armed with farsa and Prayag Singh armed with lathi, reached there and surrounded Deonath Paswan, caught him and started assaulting him. It is further alleged that the informant, her mother and Phuwa asked the assailants to leave him but they did not listen. Accused Sunder Sao asked the other accused persons to cut Deonath Paswan on which accused persons started assaulting him with lathi in their hands, accused Chhotan Singh indiscriminately stab Deonath Paswan by knife due to which he fell down on the ground. Again, the informant, her mother and phuwa requested these accused to leave Deonath Paswan but of no effect. Thereafter, the informant raised alarm, hearing which the witnesses Suresh Mahto, Dashrath Mahto, Nakul Mahto and other villagers rushed to the place of occurrence. On seeing the witnesses one of the accused Sunder Sao gave threatening to the witnesses of dire consequences. It has further been alleged that all these 15 accused persons dragged Deonath Paswan towards north side at Domgarha Ghati about 500 yards, who were followed by the informant, her mother and phuwa who continuously requested the assailants to leave Deonath Paswan but at the instigation of accused Rajesh Singh, all the accused persons caught hold of Deonath Paswan then Prithvi Singh cut off the neck of Deonath Paswan with a sharp weapon resulting his death. After committing murder of Deonath Paswan, these accused threatened them not to report the matter before the police so the matter was not reported to the police just after the incident, moreover, it was night. After committing the murder of Deonath Paswan, these accused fled away. It has been alleged in the FIR that the deceased Deonath Paswan was social worker who used to protest against the atrocities committed by the wrong doers in the village. Earlier, being the member of Panchayat, deceased Deonath Paswan asked, Ambika Singh, Manager Mahto and other not to dispose Budhni Devi from her land for which a case was lodged by Amrica Singh, Manager Mahto and Ramdeo Sao, implicating her father as an accused, which was pending in the court therefore, he had an inimical term with those persons. It has also been alleged that one month prior to the occurrence, deceased Deonath Paswan was fishing in his raiyati pond and accused Sunder Sao, Bhola Gurucharan, Sitan, Kauleshwar Sao and other restrain him from fishing then due to intervention of the police, the matter was settled. Further the case of the prosecution is that on 29/12/1999 deceased Deonath Paswan was on hunger strike in front of the Block Head Quarter against the corruption practiced in the allotment of Indira Awas and accused Sunder Sao, Bhola Karu and Gurucharan requested the block official not to take care over the conduct of Deonath Paswan hence because of aforesaid reasons, these accused under conspiracy, committed murder of Deonath Paswan.

(3.) During investigation on the direction of the Dy. S. P. and the Superintendent of Police, in their supervision found that the appellants were not present at the place and time of occurrence, therefore the allegation against the appellants were found untrue and accordingly final form was submitted against the appellants vide Supplementary Charge Sheet No. 53 of 2002 dtd. 23/9/2002. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dtd. 27/9/2023 accepted the final form submitted in favour of the appellants and the case was disposed of through Lok Adalat.