BHAGTA MUNDA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE appellant Bhagta Munda stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life, by the 9th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 658 of 1989.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the afternoon of 25.8.1989, informant Dharma Munda and his brother Turiya Munda have gone out of their house to work in the fields leaving behind deceased Suilo Mundain and sister Dubhan Mundain in the house situated at Mauza Man, Police Station - Lapung, District - Ranchi. As further that at about 10.00 a.m., the informant was informed by his brother Turiya Munda that the appellant has killed their mother. PW 1 and PW 2, both brothers, arrived at the house to find that Suilo Mundian was lying dead with injuries on her head. According to informant, PW 3 Dubhan Mundian narrated to them the incident wherein the appellant has came at about 8.30 a.m. to their house while she was baking bread. She further stated that the appellant asked the deceased about the money kept by her sons, on which she did not reply. Thereafter, he went out and came back with "basula", a heavy sharp cutting weapon used by Carpenter to assault the deceased repeatedly on her head, resulting in her death. The informant further alleged that the appellant used to call the deceased "Dian".

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that there was no eye -witness, except PW 3. The memo of appeal further mentions that the informant was hearsay witness of the occurrence and the trial Court having put reliance on the interested witnesses have committed a mistake. It was also asserted that the husband of the deceased PW 5 and villagers, PW 6 and PW 7 having 'been declared hostile, the trial Court should have discarded the evidence of PW 1, PW 2, and PW 3. According to this memo of appeal, non -examination of the investigating officer creates a reasonable doubt on the prosecution version. The counsel on record, Mr. B.P. Teterbe, did not appear to argue the appeal. Thereafter, we appointed Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the appellant.