BUDIN HANSDA @ BUDINATH HANSDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were put on trial for the offence under Sections 302 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. While appellant No. 1 Budin Hansda was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, remaining accused were convicted for the offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and all of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the trial Court.

(2.) PROSECUTION case relates to the murder of one Dhena Marandi, a resident of village Mol Pahari Bathan situated at about 15 km from the nearest police station namely Pakuria police station in the district of Pakur. The incident had occurred in the evening of 18.4.1995. A dispute over certain land was pending between the informant and his family members on one side and the accused Budin Hansda and Girish Marandi on the other side. A panchayati was to be held to resolve the dispute on 18.4.1995. A pradhan of village namely Johan Murmu (PW 9), Amin namely Gulam Rasool Mian (PW 10} and two other Amines of another village besides others including Dhena Marandi (deceased) were present at the panchayat meeting. At that time, accused persons namely, Budin Hansda, Dhemka Hansda, Noo Hansda, Kanhu Thakur Tudu, Rasool Baski, Amin Baski, Srinath Baski, Girish Marandi and Palwan Soren arrived there with bows, arrows, lathi bhujali and other lethal weapons. As soon as they arrived, they began shooting arrow, as a result of which, panches began fleeing away. However, the deceased Dhena Marandi was caught hold by the assailants and he was also assaulted and felled down by lathi. The appellants Budin Hansda thereafter cut the throat of the victim Dhena Marandi resulting in the victim 'sinstant death. The incident was witnessed by several persons who were present there. Fardbeyan of the informant Devidhan Marandi (PW 8), who is the nephew of the deceased, was recorded at about 5.00 a.m. at village Pakuria by the police officer who had visited the village. The police officer prepared the inquest report in presence of the witnesses and had forwarded the dead body of the deceased to the hospital for post - mortem examination.

(3.) THE appellants have assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence basically on the ground that the learned trail Court has seriously erred in failing to appreciate the evidences on record in proper perspective and arriving at its finding of guilt against the accused persons ignoring numerous vital contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and also ignoring the fact that the non -examination of the investigating officer has caused serious prejudice to the defence and further ignoring the fact that the witnesses on whose testimony reliance was placed, are highly interested witnesses and their testimony has not been corroborated by any independent evidence. It is also contended that the learned trial Court had erred in ignoring the contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence inasmuch as no injury of arrow was either found by the doctor or mentioned in the inquest report, although the purported eyewitness claims that the deceased had suffered injury by arrow. It is further contended that the learned trial Court has erred in failing to consider the possibility of false implication of the appellants by the informant party on account of 20/5/2014 Page 124 Equivalent Citation:2007 -JCR -2 -418 admitted previous enmity due to the land dispute and further more, that the information which was given initially and first in point of time to the police regarding the occurrence and on the basis of which, police had arrived at the village of the informant, has been suppressed and instead, the purported fardbeyan of the informant has been projected by the prosecution as the FIR although the same is hit under Section 162, Cr PC.