(1.) ALL the aforesaid four appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the said offence by the 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, by his judgment dated 29.7.1998, which has been challenged by the appellants in the present appeal.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.7.1986 at about 8.30 a.m. Budhua Oraon (the deceased) gave his fardbeyan before the Officer -in -charge of Ratu Police Station alleging therein that in the morning he had gone to plough his land and his son Bhunu Oraon was also with him. While he was ploughing, at about 8.00 a.m. the accused/appellants Chokha Oraon, Samundar Oraon (dead), Udai Oraon, Chulua Oraon came there and asked as to why he was ploughing the land. Thereupon, Budhua Oraon told him that the lands are in his continuous possession for the last thirty years and he made the same cultivable. In the meantime. Lakhna Oraon, having armed with lathi, came there and assaulted Budhua Oraon on his head causing injury due to which he fell down on the ground and, thereafter, it is said that Samundar Oraon, now dead, assaulted him with lathi on his left hand causing fracture. Thereafter, accused Chokha Oraon and Chulua Oraon assaulted him with lathi on his hands and legs. On seeing this, his son Bhunu Oraon fled away towards the village raising alarm. On hearing alarm, Sanichar -wa Oraon and Etwa Oraon came there and saw the occurrence. After arrival of Sanicharwa Oraon and Etwa Oraon the accused persons fled away towards their village. Sanicharwa Oraon and Etwa Oraon brought him to his house by a cycle and thereafter, he was taken to police station on Rikshaw wherefrom he was referred to R.M.C.H. for treatment but on the way to RMCH Budhua Oraon died. The cause of the said occurrence was said to be the dispute between the parties with regard to the possession of the land in question, which was being ploughed by Budhua Oraon.
(3.) IN order to establish the charges, altogether eight prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.