AMIN SOREN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above named appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence both dated 23rd February, 1989, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 198 of 1987, arising out G.R. Case No. 856 of 1985, whereby and whereunder, they have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, which is based on the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of the informant Misil Soren (PW 9), recorded on 17th December, 1985 at Masalia (Tongra) Police Station, is that on 16th December, 1985 at about 3.00 a.m. his grandmother Thakuran Murmu (deceased) of Village-Baliajore, Police Sta- tion-Masilia (Tongra) had gone to the house of Dhan Hembram along with the Wives of Sona Soren and Som Soren for drinking pochai (a kind of wine made of rice) on the occasion of settlement of marriage. When she did not return to her house in the night, the informant thought that she might have stayed in the house of Dhan Hembram. Next day on 17th December, 1985 at about 5.30 a.m. Mangal Besra, a neighbour of the informant, came and informed him that he had seen his grand-mother lying on the exit door of the ban, situated at southern portion of his house. The informant Misil Soren, his father Dhena Soren (PW 2) and mother went there and found his grand-mother dead. The informant also noticed abrasion on the left side of her neck and swelling on the left temporal region and it appeared to him that death of the deceased had been caused due to strangulation. The informant Misil Soren (PW 9) enquired from the wives of Sona Soren and Som Soren, who informed that they had gone to the house of Chhoto' Hembram for drinking pochai, after taking pochai in the house of Dhan Hembram. They further informed that while they were taking pochai in the house of Chhoto Hembram, Maku Hembram (appellant No. 4), mother of Amin Soren (appellant No. 1) had taken them to her house. All the three had consumed too much pochai (liquor) in the house of Maku Hembram and when they became highly intoxicated, Pancham Hembram and his wife took away two of them from the house of Amin Soren (appellant No. 1) leaving informant's grandmother in the house of Amin Soren (appellant No. 1) itself. In the morning of 17th December, 1985 when the informant enquired about the incident from Amin Soren (appellant No. 1), he (Amin Soren) told him that his grand-mother (Thakuran) had left his house in the evening itself. The informant has further stated that Loli Soren, sister of Amin Soren (appellant No. 1), had become insane two months -prior to the date of occurrence. Amin Soren (appellant No. 1) and his mother Maku Hembram (appellant No. 4) had complained him (informant) that his grand-mother had played witchcraft on Loli Soren. They had asked him (the informant) to have control over his grand-mother, otherwise they would kill her (Thakuran Murmu deceased). The informant suspected that Amin Soren (appellant No. 1), his mother Maku Hembram (appellant No. 4), brother of Amin Soren, appellant No. 1, namely, Kanhai Soren (appellant No. 3) had caused the death of Thakuran Murmu by pressing her neck and had kept her dead body at the door of his ban in the night itself. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that appellant No. 3 Kanhai Soren is the brother of appellant No. 1 Amin Soren, appellant No. 4 Maku Hembram is the mother of appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 Paneshwar Hembram is the maternal uncle (mama) of appellant No. 1 i.e. brother of appellant No. 4 Maku Hembram. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, formal First Information Report was drawn up on 17th December, 1985 at 8.30 p.m. and Masalia (Tongra) P.S. Case No. 80 of 1985 was registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the three named accused persons. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and charge was framed accordingly, which was read over and explained to the appellants in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) To substantiate the charge, levelled against the appellants, the prosecution has examined altogether eleven witnesses. Out of them. PW 1 Dr. Ram Sao is the doctor, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Thakuran Murmu (deceased); PW 10 Jagannath Ram has conducted part investigation whereas PW 11 Jugeshwar Singh is the main Investigating Officer. Out of rest eight witnesses, PW 7 Rasni Marandi has been declared hostile by the prosecution whereas PW 8 Muni Kisku has been tendered by the prosecution. PW 3 Fani Bhushan Das is a formal witness on the inquest report. Out of rest five witnesses, PW 9 Misil Soren (the informant) is the grand-son of the deceased and PW 2 Dhena Soren is the son of deceased. Both of them can be termed to be interested witnesses. PW 6 Makhoni Tuddu is also related with the informant, as it appears from her evidence. There being no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence, the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, one of the important factor will be whether the prosecution has been able to complete the chain of evidence to bring home the charges against the appellants or not.