BAJOON MURMU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant from the Jail. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court whereby he has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced rigorous imprisonment for life vide impugned Judgment dated 17.06.2002 in Sessions Case No. 97 of 97/29 of 97 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 05.07.1996 at about 11:00 a.m., one Bale Kisku (P.W. -7) went to his neighbour's house Raman Tudu (deceased) and called him at his door. Raman Tudu (deceased) and his wife Gangan Muni Soren (informant) also reached there and then saw that Barka Hansda, Ramtudu, Lambat Hembram, Bishnu Singh were sitting there, Bishnu Singh and Raman Tudu asked Bale Tudu to bring liquor. Bale brought liquor and thereafter, all the four drank together. When Raman Tudu and others were drinking liquor at that time, the appellant Bajoon Murmu came there and on seeing them drinking, he went back. Further case of the prosecution is that Bishnu Singh, Lambat Hembram and Barka Hansda, after completing his drink, returned and Raman Tudu (deceased) was lying on the ground. At about 12:00 noon, the appellant again came to the place holding Lathi and then he gave one Lathi blow on the temple of Raman Tudu who was lying on the ground due to which, blood started oozing out from his temple and he died at the spot. The informant Ganga Muni Soren was present at the place of occurrence and when she raised Hulla, then the villagers assembled there and thereafter, she narrated the story to them. According to the informant, the appellant was on enimical terms with her husband due to some land dispute and on earlier occasion also, he had threatened her husband to kill.

(3.) MR . S.N. Roy, learned amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that if the evidence of the so called two eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1 and 6 are scrutinised minutely then it would appear that they are in fact not eye witnesses. He also pointed out that the most important witness i.e. the informant Ganga Muni Soren who was an eye witness to the occurrence, has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. He submitted that though the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges but even then, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant.