LAWS(JHAR)-2008-12-2

MANGRA URAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On December 23, 2008
MANGRA URAON Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 25-8-1990 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, singhbhum, at Chaibasa in S. T. No. 95 of 1989 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34,i. P. C. and have been sentenced to undergo RI for life and they have been further convicted under section 323/34, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo RI for one year each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 307/34, I. P. C. against these appellants.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that sanha No. 129 dated 9-8-1988 was lodged by the Bimal Lakra alias Binay Lakra stating therein that on 8-8-1988 at 9. 30 p. m. while the informant along with his brother mohan Lakra (deceased) and Boyas Kachhap were returning from Monoharpur after cinema show, these three appellants namely mangra Uraon, Etwa Uraon, and Sonichar uraon stopped them on the road near PANI tanki at village Donga Kata and after exchange of hot words all the appellants assaulted Mohan Lakra and Boyas Kachhap by Lathi, as a result of which they sustained grevious injuries on their person. The informant on seeing this, fled away to his village and raised alarm. The villagers along with the informant came to the place of occurrence and found Boyas Kachhap and mohan Lakra in unconscious position. The villagers took both the injured to the village but since it was late at night, they did not go to the police station. On the next morning they took both the injured to the monoharpur police station and a Sanha entry was made on the statements of Bijay lakra at about 10. 30 a. m. and the both injured were sent to the Monoharpur State dispensary for their treatment but on 10-8-1988 at about 5 p. m. injured Mohan Lakra died and then the Monoharpur police draw up formal F. I. R. on 10-8-1988 under sections 302/34 and 307/34, I. P. C. against all the three appellants.

(3.) THE defence of the appellant is complete denial of the alleged occurrence and they pleaded their innocence.