RAVISHWAR MANJHI, UMA KANT RAJAK, KALA CHAND MANJHI AND JALESHWAR MANJHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above named appellants were charged and tried for the offences under Section 302/149, 307/149/326/147/148/324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Revlshwar Manjhl and Jaleshwar Manjhi were convicted under Section 302/148 of the Indian Penal Code. Jaleshwar Manjhi appellant was further convicted for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Kala Chand Manjhi and Raghu Manjhi were convicted for the offence under Sections 326/148, IPC while appellants Santu Manjhl and Jma Kant Rajak were convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Sentence of life Imprisonment was awarded to the appellants Ravishwar Manjhi and Jaleshwar Manjhl for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Jaleshwar Manjhi, Kalachand Manjhl and Raghu Manjhi were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and two years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 148, IPC. The remaining two appellants Santu Manjhi and Uma Kant Rajak were sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved, they have preferred these appeals.

(2.) THE case was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Suresh Kumar Das recorded at 3.45 p.m. on 31.10.1997 by ASI Shankar Ram (PW 17) who was then posted at Bangoria Police Out Post within Chanda Kiyari Police Station In the District of Dhanbad (now Bokaro). The case relates to the homicidal death of Nagendra Das, father of the informant Suresh Kumar Das (PW 10), which occurred on account of an alleged assault made at him on 31.10.1997 at abut 2.00 p.m. on the road in front of his house within the village Simultand. The brief facts of the case, as per the fardbeyan of the informant is that on 31.10.1997 at about 2.00 p.m. the deceased, Nagendra Das along with his cousin Manpuran Das (PW 1) was sitting and gossiping outside his house. At that time, all the appellants, whose house is situated opposite the house of the informant, came variously armed with lethal weapons and began abusing Nagendra Das, on protest by Nagendra Das. they began assaulting him with the weapons in their hands. It is stated that the appellant Jaleshwar Manjhi assaulted Nagendra Das with Jangi on the victims head and when he bent down, the appellant Rabishwar Manjhi pierced a tenta (a long iron road having a pointed blade) on the back of the victim. When the victims brothers Manpuran Das (PW 1) and Gaur Das (PW 8) tried to intervene, they were also assaulted. Ravishwar Manjhi assaulted Manpuran Das with tangi while the appellant Jaleshwar Manjhi assaulted Gaur Das with tangl The appellants Kala Chand Manjhi and Raghu Manjhi also assaulted Manpuran Das (PW 1) with tangi on his head and on his knee. The remaining two appellants name santu Manjhi and Urna Kant Manjhi also assaulted Gaur Das with the weapons in their hands. While Gaur Das (PW 8) and Manpuran Das (PW 1) sustained grievous injuries on their person, the victim Nagendra Das who had sustained fatal injuries died at the spot. The incident was witnessed by several members of the family of the deceased and also by the neighbouring residents, including PW 2 Rajan Das, PW 3 Dhaneshwar as, PW 4 Chinta Haran Das, PW 5 Mantu Das, PW 7 Parmeshwar Das, PW 8 Nityam Devi, PW 10 Suresh Kumar Das (informant) and PW 13 Shankuntala Devi. ASI Shankar Ram (PW 17) arrived at the place of the occurrence within 1 -1/2 hours. After recording the Jardbeyan of the informant, he noted down the injuries seen on the bodies of PWs 1 and 8 and referred the injured persons for medical treatment, prepared the inquest on the dead body of the deceased, seized blood stained earth and grass from the place of the occurrence and prepared seizure list thereof in presence of the witness and later, forwarded the dead body of the deceased Nagendra Das for post mortem examination.

(3.) AT the trial, the prosecution had examined altogether 17 witnesses, including the informant (PW 10) and the injured persons as well as the witnesses living adjacent to the place of the occurrence besides the doctor who had examined the injured persons and had also conducted post -mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The investigating officer was, however, not examined by the prosecution. On the other hand, the defence had also examined two witnesses by whom the FIR and chargesheet relating to the counter case, and the injury reports pertaining to the appellants Ravishwar Manjhi and Jaleshwar Manjhi were proved in evidence.