RITBARAN MANJHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30th January, 2004, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial Nos. 34 of 2000/47 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the Court having found the appellant Ritbaran Manjhi @ Libra Manjhi @ Libra guilty of committing murder of Dineshwar Manjhi, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as has been made out in the fardbeyan is that on 24/08/1999 Dineshwar Manjhi (deceased) father of the informant, Shivnandan Manjhi (P.W. 9) was sleeping on the outer portion of the house whereas the informant was sleeping inside the house. In the early morning at about 4 'O' Clock when the deceased felt that some cattle has entered into his field situated near the house and were grazing maize crops, he woke up and drove them out. In that course, his father took the cattle towards the house of this appellant as the cattle belong to him. Meanwhile, the appellant gave a 'Tangi' blow on his father. When his father shouted, the informant -P.W. 9 as well as his mother Etwari Devi (PW -6), came out of the house and found Dineshwar Manjhi badly injured. There the deceased disclosed PW -9 as well as PW -6 that the appellant has assaulted him with 'Tangi' when he had taken the cattle to his house. They brought Dineshwar Manjhi (deceased) to their house where he succumbed to his injuries. Thereupon, the informant (PW -9) informed to the Officer -in -Charge of Petarwar Police Station, who, when came to the house of the informant, recorded the fardbeyan of the informant and took up the investigation.

(3.) PW -9 Shivnandan Manjhi -the informant, has testified that when in the early morning his father (deceased) and mother (PW -6) came outside the house for easing themselves, they found some cattle belonging to this appellant grazing maize crop. His father drove them out. While his father was returning back, the appellant came with 'Tangi' and assaulted his father with Tangi. Thereupon, his mother raised alarm. On hearing such alarm, he came out of the house and found his father in injured condition. On being asked, his father disclosed that it was the appellant, who had assaulted him. Thereupon, he brought his father to his house but after half an hour his father died. Thus, it appears that the informant never happens to be the eyewitness to the occurrence, rather he derived knowledge of the occurrence from his father.