Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 687 (JHR)

Som Chand Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-18

P.P.BHATT, R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
JUDGMENT By Court.-Heard the parties on merits. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 26.5.2003 and order of sentence dated 27.5.2002. passed by the Sessions Judge. Seraikella-Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2000 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 12.10.1999 at about 5:30 p.m. Tusu Majhian wife of the informant Ganesh Majhi went to the field to throw cow dung. After sometime the informant heard the noise of the village children that appellant had killed his wife Tusu Majhian. The informant came out from his house and found that the appellant was coming with the head of his wife in one hand and axe in another hand. Blood was coming Out from the cut head of the deceased. The appellant look away the head in the campus of a Primary School and kept there. He then went away from there brandishing his axe. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the appellant was mad' since last one year for which he was being treated. 4. Mr. Satish Kumar Deo learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds and submitted that the appellant has already remained in jail for about 11 years. 5. On the other hand. Mr. M.B. Lal, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment. 6. The Prosecution examined eight witnesses. The informant (P.W. 1). has supported the prosecution case fully and denied the suggestion of the defence that the appellant is mad. P.W. 2 also saw the appellant coming with an axe in one hand and with the head of the deceased in another. P.W. 3 is a hearsay witness. P.W. 4 has been tendered. PWs. 5 and 6 are formal witnesses. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. PW 8 is the Doctor w/o had conducted post-mortem. The prosecution has fully proved that the appellant murdered the wife of the informant by cutting and separating her head from the trunk. 7. In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr PC. the appellant's defence was that he committed the murder under the influence of planet. PW 8 is the Doctor w/o had conducted post-mortem. The prosecution has fully proved that the appellant murdered the wife of the informant by cutting and separating her head from the trunk. 7. In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr PC. the appellant's defence was that he committed the murder under the influence of planet. He admitted the occurrence of coming from field with an axe in his hand and with the cut head of the deceased in another though he requested for acquittal on the ground that he has to maintain his family. 8. The learned trial Court has inter alia, observed as follows : "His statement under Section 313. Cr PC reveals two things :-Firstly that he is not a mad and he understands the nature of trial. Secondly that in fact he has confessed his guilt although prays for acquittal in order to maintain his family. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that soon after the occurrence accused was seen coming with the head of the deceased and an axe in his hand. The evidence on record read with the statement of the accused leave absolutely no room to doubt the complicity of the accused in this crime. The evidence on the record clearly suggest that the accused has committed the murder of Tusu Majhian without any valid reason. In view of the statement of the accused there remains little to discuss the veracity of the witnesses examined in this case who otherwise also appears to be truthful witness having no grudge at all against the accused. There is no reason to doubt their evidence which further finds support from the statement of the accused stated above." 9. After hearing the parties and going through the records carefully in our opinion no grounds have been made out for interfering with the impugned judgment. 10. However as prayed on behalf of the appellant if the Jail Doctor thinks proper the concerned Superintendent of Jail will get the appellant examined by the Doctors at R.I.N.P.A.S.. Ranchi and if necessary treatment be given to the appellant in jail. 11. With these observations and directions this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.