SOMA MUNDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3rd Dec., 2003 and 6th Dec., 2003 respectively passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in connection with Sessions trial no.3 of 2002 corresponding to G.R.Case no.273 of 2001 arising out of Murhu P.S. Case no.23 of 2001, 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 fardbeyan of Angi Mundain(wife of the deceased) recorded on 13.06.2001 at 14.30 hours at Village-Durudih within P.S. Murhu are that the informant with her husband-Mangra Munda was sleeping in her house. At about 11.30 P.M. after hearing noise, she woke up and saw two boys going out from the southern door. Out of them, one was having Tangi and another was having torch. In the beam of torch, she identified them as Jaga Munda and Soma Munda, both sons of Gomiya Munda. Thereafter, she lit a lamp and saw her husband dead having sharp cut injury on his neck. She also noticed blood fallen on the ground and when she raised Hulla, people of the locality assembled. On the basis of fardbeyan of Angi Mundain, Murhu P.S. Case no.23 of 2001 was registered for the offence punishable under section 302/34 I.P.C. against the appellants. The investigation was carried out and charge sheet against the appellants was submitted. Accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial no. 3 of 2002.

(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. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses including informant and Prem Mukesh Topano (doctor),who conducted post mortem examination on the dead-body of Mangra Munda. Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti at the conclusion of trial, placing reliance on the evidence and documents available on record, held the appellants guilty for the offence of murder and inflicted sentence as indicated above.