BABURAM MARANDI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court Heard the parties.

(2.) This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.06.2006 and 07.06.2006 respectively, passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 305 of 2003 arising out of Kathikund P.S. Case No. 25/2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 456/2003 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ and in default of making payment of fine, further R.I. for a period of two years.

(3.) The facts emerging from fardbayan of Sohagini Hansda, wife of Late Hopna Marandi recorded on 21.05.2003 at 2:30 hrs. is that appellant Babu Ram Marandi is own brother of her husband Hopna Marandi. After death of her husband, her brother in law Babu Ram Marandi kept sister of the informant as his wife and he wanted to oust the informant from the house with an intention to grab her properties. On the date of occurrence i.e. 20.05.2003, the appellant claimed share of paddy which was grown by the informant. When she refused to partition the paddy, the appellant chased the informant and her mother and caused injuries to them by means of knife. After having injuries, the informant and her mother entered in the house of Pardhan and fell down. On the following day, fardbayan of Sohagini Hansda was recorded and case being Kathikund P.S. Case No. 25/2003, dated 21.05.2003, for the offence punishable under Section 302, 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant was registered. The investigation was carried out and chargesheet was submitted and accordingly, cognizance was taken against sole appellant Babu Ram Marandi. The case of accused Babu Ram Marandi was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No. 305/ 2003. Charges under Section 302, 307, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code were framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate charges, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses including the Doctor and the Investigating Officer. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka at the conclusion of trial held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted him from the charges under Sections 307, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.