HANDU BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.6.2004 and 15.6.2004 respectively passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC II, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 202 of 1996 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34, IPC, Section 307/34, IPC and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34, IPC, 7 years under Section 307/34, IPC and 7 years under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act. It was further directed that the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that fard beyan (Exh. 5) of the informant Ashok Kumar Singh (PW 2) was recorded by the Police on 28.5.1995 at 8.30 a.m. at Civil Hospital Gumla, in which he has stated that in the intervening night of 27/28th May, 1995, the informant had been sleeping inside his house after taking dinner. The informant (PW 2) woke up to case at about 11.15 p.m. and when he was easing himself, he saw a jeep as well as a motor cycle coming towards the house of appellant Handu Bhagat and some persons were sitting on it. The said vehicles stopped in front of the door of the Handu Bhagat appellant No. 1. He also noticed that after sometime, the said jeep went towards Gumla. Thereafter, the informant went inside his room and he again slept there. Again, at about 3.30 a.m. in the morning, a bomb was thrown inside his house which exploded in his house resulting injuries to the informant on his body and Vina Minz, a maid servant who had been sleeping in the eastern veranda of the house of the informant also sustained burn injuries due to explosion of the bomb. As soon as the bomb exploded, the informant saw that the appellant Handu Bhagat was holding a rifle in his hand and the appellants Mahendra Oraon and Raghu Oraon were also with him and he identified the appellants in the light.of a torch and electricity. Thereafter, all the appellants fled away after riding on the jeep which was standing nearby the house of the informant. When hue and cry was made, the witnesses and villagers reached at the spot and PW 1 Abhimanyu 'Singh also reached at the spot. In the morning, the informant along with his maid servant Veena Minz were taken to Civil Hospital, Gumla and they were medically treated there and thereafter the said fard beyan was recorded in the hospital. It is also alleged in the said statement that the nephew of the informant namely Abhimanyu Singh (PW 1) was implicated in a false case of kidnapping of a girl of the accused family. Thereafter, the investigation was completed by the Investigating Officer and it culminated into submission of the charge -sheet against the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. After committing the case to the Court of Sessions, the Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants. The appellants denied the charges and claimed their trial.

(3.) AFTER recording the evidence of the prosecution, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellants have denied all the averments made in the evidence against them and have asserted that they have been falsely implicated in this ase due to enmity.