NIVIDAN BHAGAT @ NIDRE BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.7.2001 and 26.7.2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 135/99, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner cum special Judge -I, Ranchi held the appellants guilty under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to serve RI for life. Appellants Sukdeo Bhagat, Mahadeo Bhagat, Chhota Nividan Bhagat, Bhagna of Sukhdeo Bhagat and Seela Bhagat are further sentenced to serve RI for three years under Section 148 IPC and appellants Barka Nividan Bhagat, s/o Pirku Bhagat, Chilo Bhagatain and Kamla Bhagatain are sentenced to serve RI for two years under Section 147 IPC. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix leading to this appeal are that on 11.10.98 informant Mangra Oraon has gone to harvest Marua crop grown by him on his land situated in Mouja Jhikpur, P.S. Mandar along with his family members i.e. wife, PW 3, daughter PW 1 and deceased Birsa in the morning. As alleged, at about 11 AM after they started harvesting Marua, all the appellants arrived there armed variously with sharp cutting weapons and surrounded them. It is further alleged that Badka Nividan Bhagat instigated all the appellants to finish the informant and his family members, after which the appellants assaulted them with arms, which they had in their hands. According to the informant, his brother Birsa Oraon was assaulted first causing injuries on his neck, chest etc. resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot. He further asserted that female appellants chased and assaulted PWs 1 and 3. They raised alarm, on which PW 4 Etwa arrived at the spot and appellants fled away.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred on the ground that learned trial court has not considered the improbability of the prosecution case. It further mentions that in view of admitted land dispute between the parties, false implication was probable and in such circumstance relying upon only interested witnesses was not proper. It has further been mentioned that the medical report is not supported by evidence particularly with declaration of PW 5 Etwa Oraon hostile, the only independent witness. It is further asserted that when investigating officer has not seized harvested Marua crop, entire prosecution case become doubtful. It has further been asserted that the females assailants may not have got common intention to cause death. All these points were stressed before us by Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned Counsel for the appellants. The learned APP opposed this contention on the ground that eye witnesses, who were also injured during the occurrence, have supported the prosecution case on all material points.