BUDHU MUNDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31st January, 2013 passed by Shri K.K. Srivastava, District & Sessions Judge, Seraikella Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No.21 of 2007 holding the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life as also fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he will further undergo simple imprisonment for three months with set off clause for the period already undergone during trial.

(2.) The case of prosecution, in nutshell, is that the S.I., Arvind Kumar Majhi, Officer-in-Charge, Kuchai P.S. recorded the fardbeyan of the Informant Singi Mundain, wife of deceased Soma Munda on 30.10.2006 at about 8.30 hours at the door of the informant Singi Mundain stating therein that in the night of 29/30.10.2006 at about 9 p.m. after taking dinner while she along with her husband Soma Munda, daughter Dasma Kumari were sitting at the courtyard (verandah) of her house and one "Dhibri" was burning and she was doing oil massage to her younger son, who was ill. All of a sudden, accused Budhu Munda lashed with bow and arrow came and assaulted one arrow upon her husband which hit on the chest of the deceased and thereafter the accused started to flee away. In the meantime, her husband taking a stick in the hand chased the accused but after 200 yard near Pagdandi, he fell down and died and the accused fled away. On alarm, co-villager came and searched the accused but he could not be traced out. Lastly, she claimed that her husband Soma Munda died due to assault of arrow and this offence has been seen by her younger daughter Jasima Kumari also.

(3.) After submission of charge-sheet, the cognizance of offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions on 03.02.2007. The charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against sole appellant and prosecution altogether examined 11 witnesses and have exhibited some documents as well as Material exhibits on their behalf whereas Defence has not examined any witness nor any documents were brought on record.