SAGAR PINGUA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Cr. Appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3rd April, 2006 and 4th April, 2006 respectively passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. -I, Chaibasa in connection with S.T. No. 390 of 1999(S) & S.T. No. 390 of 1999(A), corresponding to G.R. No. 399 of 1997 (Manjhgaon P.S. Case No. 26 of 1997) whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. -I at Chaibasa has held the appellants guilty under Ss. 302/34, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them only under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed them to undergo R.I. for life for the offence punishable under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case as it appears from the fardbayan of Shakuntala Kui recorded on 27.07.1997 at 13:30 hours at village Haldiya Munda Sai is that on 27.07.1997 Krishna Chandra Hembrom (deceased) along with son of the informant was present in his field and ploughing of the field with the help of labourers was going on. In the meantime, the appellants along with other co -accused, who are named in the F.I.R. armed with Bhujali, Spade etc. came to the field, surrounded the deceased -Krishna Chandra Hembrom and hurled repeated blow by means of weapon which they were holding. Krishna Chandra Hembrom after receiving injury tried to flee away but could not succeed and fell down after covering some distance. In course of assault one of the labourer Lakhinder had intervened to save but he was also given Bhujali blow and sustained injury in his abdomen. It is disclosed that Krishna Chandra Hembrom died at the spot whereas another injured Lakhinder Hembrom died in course of treatment. The informant is the sister of deceased -Krishna Chandra Hembrom. On the basis of fardbayan of Shakuntala Kui, West Singhbhum (Sadar) Majhgaon P.S. Case No. 26/1997 dated 27.07.1997 under Ss. 447/324/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and other named accused was registered.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that former accused, who were on record have been acquitted. Except the informant and her son Satya Narayan Tiriya rest of the so -called eye -witnesses had been examined in earlier Sessions Trial to which they did not deny. They have admitted that on earlier occasion when they were examined they had not supported the prosecution case. They had not disclosed either names of the accused or manner of occurrence. The aforesaid witnesses who have claimed that they had been engaged in ploughing the field by the deceased, did not stick to their statement recorded U/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. as a result acquittal was recorded. Now, during trial of these two cases in which conviction has been recorded, they have said that they were brought by informant -Shakuntala Kui to the Court and they have deposed what was tutored to them by the informant. Considering aforesaid aspect no reliance could be placed on the statement of aforesaid witnesses and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has committed error by holding the appellants guilty placing reliance on the testimony of such witnesses.