Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 319 (JHR)

Panchu Marandi v. State of Bihar

2012-03-01

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2000 and 25.08.2000 respectively, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Pakur, in Sessions Trial No. 148/98/16/98, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that Hopna Marandi (PW 11) gave a fardbeyan before the police on 13.10.1997 at about 1 p.m. that at about 10 a.m. his elder brother-Baburam Marandi (deceased) along with Babu Lal Marandi (PW 5) went to the house of the appellant for talking about the land dispute between the informant party and the appellant. After some time, PW 5 returned, Baburam Marandi (deceased) remained in the house of the appellant. At about 11 a.m., the informant heard the cry "Bachao Bachao" from the house of the appellant. Then the informant along with PWs 8 and 9 rushed to the house of the appellant. They saw the appellant fleeing away. When the informant party went inside the house, they found Baburam Marandi dead with bleeding injury including on neck. The informant along with others chased the appellant but he fled away. The matter was reported to chowkidar. It was alleged that due to on going land dispute, the appellant has killed the deceased. 3. Mr. Ashish Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailing the impugned judgment, submitted as follows. No one has seen the actual assault. The weapon of assault was not sent for chemical analysis or for examining finger print thereon. There are material contradictions in the evidences. The appellant has remained in jail for about 14 years and he must be about 60 years of age by now. 4. On the other hand counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. 5. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. PWs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have been declared hostile. PW 3 is the doctor who found six sharp cut injury on the body of "the deceased caused by sharp cutting weapon and cause of death was haemorrhage and shock following the slid injury. PWs 8 and 9 are the witnesses named in the FIR who accompanied PW II-informant to the house of the appellant. They fully supported the prosecution case. PWs 8 and 9 are the witnesses named in the FIR who accompanied PW II-informant to the house of the appellant. They fully supported the prosecution case. The informant said in the fardbeyan that deceased along with PW 5 went for talking about the land dispute. Whether the deceased was called by the appellant or deceased himself went to the house of the appellant. is not relevant. P.Ws 8. 9. 10 and 11 have specifically said that they saw the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence immediately, after the occurrence and they found the deceased dead with bleeding injury. Only because some other persons also used to visit the house of the appellant on some occasions for drinking, it cannot be believed that some other persons than the appellant might have killed the deceased. There is nothing to show false implication. The deceased was found in the house of the appellant. He was seen alive soon before the incident. On alarm of the deceased, some of the witnesses reached at the place of occurrence from where the appellant was fleeing away. In such circumstances, if the weapon of assault was not sent for forensic examination, the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside. In any event for such lacuna in investigation in this case, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. 6. After hearing the parties at length and carefully going through the records, in our opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. No grounds are made out for interference with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.