MUNSHI BASKEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appellant, Munshi Baskey has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.1. for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 159 of 1985/ 12 of 1989. The appellant has challenged the said conviction and sentence in the present appeal.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case is that the informant Bablu Kiskoo (P.W. 1) submitted a fardbeyan on 8.11.1983 that his servant Hiru Tudu (the deceased) had gone to Chatkam Mela but he did not return on that day. On Monday one Baman Hansda reported that Munshi Baskey (the appellant) has made the deceased Hiru Tudu half -dead by assaulting him while he was returning from Mela with his sister -in -law Betimuni Soren (P.W.6) i.e. wife of the appellant. It was reported that the appellant assaulted Hiru Tudu by means of Lathi and he was brought by the witnesses to the house of Paradhan. Then the informant alongwith his father went to Pradhan, Sanjhla Soren and saw his servant Hiru Tudu in senseless condition. On the next day i.e. 7.11.1983 Hiru Tudu died. It is stated that Hiru Tudu used to go to village Kutlu to the wile of the appellant Munshi Baskey who was his sister -in -law and due to that relationship he used to cut jokes with her, which was not liked by the Munshi Baskey (the appellant). It is further alleged that in the Me/a, the appellant saw his wife with the deceased Hiru Tudu which infuriated him and due to which he assaulted the deceased by means of Lathi.

(3.) IN order to establish the charges altogether 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of them, P.W.6 Betimuni Soren, who is none else but the wife of the present appellant herself, is the sole eye witness to the occurrence. The other witnesses are either hearsay and/or not directly on the point of the occurrence. So far as the evidence of P.W. 6 is concerned, it appears that she has stated that her husband assaulted the deceased by means of a piece of bamboo.