NITAI MUNDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 3.9.2002 and the order of sentence dated 4.9.2002 passed by the then 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, Ranchi in S.T. No.33 of 1992 whereby and whereunder the court having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of Doma Munda convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 30.8.1991 at about 4 p.m. when the informant Budhram Munda (P.W.1) and his father Doma Munda (deceased) were in the shop, this appellant and the accused Manohar Munda (since died during the pendency of this appeal) came to his shop situated in his house and asked to give oil of Rs.2/- on credit. Two days' before also they had taken oil of Rs.3/- on credit but the payment had not been made and therefore, Doma Munda told them that unless and until they will make payment, he will not give oil to them. Upon which there ensued a verbal altercation, during which the appellant and other accused held out threat and then they left the shop. After they left, the shop was closed. Thereupon both the persons along with others to whom the informant Budhram Munda (P.W.1) could not identify came over there at 8.30 p.m. The appellant was having tangi with him whereas Manohar Munda was holding lathi. They hurled bomb in front of the house and thereafter the appellant and other accused Manohar Munda started assaulting his father. Meanwhile, the informant, Budhram Munda by raising alarm fled towards village. By the time villagers came, the accused persons had already left the place. The informant and the villagers found Doma Munda dead. There the accused persons had left a towel and a bomb like thing.

(3.) On the next day, i.e., 31.8.1991 at about 9.30 a.m. when A.S.I, R.G. Sharma of Arki police station came to the place of occurrence, he recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.3) of the Budhram Munda (P.W.1). Thereupon he took up the investigation, during which he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and then prepared an inquest report (Ext.1). Thereafter the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Chandra Shekhar Jaiswal, who has not been examined by the prosecution. However, post-mortem report has been proved as Ext.4. From its perusal, it does appear that doctor during autopsy did find following injuries: