MANGAL TUDU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and three years respectively, by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 121 of 1993. However, both the Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that the deceased Munna Danial used to serve in Kuruwa Post Office within Dumka Muffasil in the town of Dumka. According to the prosecution case, the deceased was going to attend his duty in the morning of 6.8.1992 when all the appellants named above overpowered him outside the village - Ghashipur and assaulted him with sharp cutting weapons resulting in his death on the spot. Informant Suleman Murmu as P.W. 4 and P.W. 3 Ram Murmu have seen the occurrence in broad day light to inform P.W.1 Subhashini Hembram, mother of the deceased. According to the informant, the deceased was carrying Rs. 1000/ - in cash and Rs. 34/ - of the Post office as well as postal documents, which was carried away by the appellant. The reason behind this occurrence is said to be land dispute between the deceased and appellant Fan Murmu. P.W. 3 has further asserted that he saw the occurrence while he was going to college at Dumka.

(3.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants on the grounds that the learned trial court has committed a mistake of fact by accepting the evidence of highly interested and improbable witnesses. According to Mrs. Sunita Srivastava, learned Amicus Curiae, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the witnesses examined before the trial court have actually seen the occurrence. It is also submitted that when the occurrence took place in broad daylight just by the side of village Ghashipur, no independent and probable witness of the village has come to support the prosecution case. Learned Counsel further submitted that the admitted enmity between the parties is one of the reasons for false implication. He has further asserted that in case appellants have got intention to commit theft, they would not have left the bicycle there. Therefore, the charges are not proved. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the injuries found on the deceased do not confirm the ocular version of P.W.3 find P.W.4. As such, the trial court should have acquitted the appellants.