SANKHAI MURMU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22nd Nov., 2006 and 24th Nov., 2006 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Ghatshila in connection with Sessions trial Case no.213 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 40 of 2005 arising out of Chakulia P.S. Case no. 5 of 2005, whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) The facts reveal from written report lodged by Shankro Hansda(P.W.3) are that on 23.01.2005, Pahar Hansda(son of the informant) left home at about 9 P.M. to answer call of nature. At about 12.00 mid-night, Pahar Hansda returned back with bleeding injury on his person and he died on 24.01.2005 at about 11 A.M. The informant could learn that her son-Pahar Hansda was assaulted near the house of Sankhai Murmu(appellant no.1). She further learnt that Pahar Hansda after having injury had consumed a glass of water at the house of Kapra Murmu(P.W.2). The informant suspecting hands of appellants in the alleged murder of her son-Pahar Hansda, lodged a written report with Chakulia Police Station and a case being P.S. Case no.5 of 2005 under section 302/34 I.P.C. was registered against the appellants. The police, after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet against appellants. Accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case no. 213 of 2005.

(3.) Charge under section 302/34 I.P.C. was framed against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to substantiate charge, examined altogether eleven witnesses including Yogendra Nath (doctor),who conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Pahar Hansda and Shrikant Upadhyay (P.W.11) Investigating Officer. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Ghatshila at the conclusion of trial, placing reliance on the evidence and documents available on record, held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under section 302/34 I.P.C. and inflicted sentence as indicated above.