BADAL MURMU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on February 05,2014

Badal Murmu Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

TEZU MUNDA VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SURAT VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
RAIMON LAKRA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-10-76] [REFERRED TO]
NOORMAMAD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-1-148] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMANAND AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
POYAMI BONDA SON OF BOGI MADIYA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH PS KODENAR, DISTRICT BASTAR, CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2016-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHAN BRAMHE AND ORS. VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2014-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. ABHUBHAI GOVINDBHAI SITAPARA & 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2016-3-341] [REFERRED]
RAMKHILAWAN YADAV VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2014-10-27] [REFERRED]
HARILAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF M P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) [LAWS(CHH)-2014-10-47] [REFERRED]
LAKHAN BRAMHE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-11-66] [REFERRED]
PANNA LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-8-46] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA GOPE VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-11-214] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BAHOR LONIYA AND FOUR OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION [LAWS(MPH)-2017-10-254] [REFERRED TO]
JODH SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-357] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWAROOP AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-7-51] [REFERRED TO]
MD. SAHNAWAJ VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-6-20] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)There are eleven appellants. All of them were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan for offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. They were convicted for offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for causing death of one Jhore Soren ("deceased-Jhore Soren"). The appellants' appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal.
(2.)The prosecution story could be shortly stated:
The appellants and the prosecution witnesses belong to Santhal Community of village Mobarakpur. In March, 1989, deceased-Jhore Soren killed the hen of one Bhagbat. This created a furore in Santhal community. A Salish was called and the deceased was asked to give one hen and two handies of country liquor to Bhagbat as a penalty by the Salishman. Deceased-Jhore Soren complied with Salishman's order. On 14/4/1989, when deceased-Jhore Soren and PW-7 Kanka were discussing the same incident, appellant-Bhagbat overheard it and showed his displeasure to PW-7 Kanka. When PW-7 Kanka protested, the appellants Bhagbat, Ragai and Sambhu caused bleeding injuries to him. PW-7 Kanka went to a doctor and got himself examined. On the next day, in the morning, deceased-Jhore Soren and PW-7 Kanka were called to the courtyard of one Saheb Hasda on the pretext that a meeting was to be held over the previous day's incident. When deceased- Jhore Soren and PW-7 Kanka came to the courtyard of Saheb Hasda, they were tied with a rope against one bamboo pole and one Kul tree respectively by the appellants. The appellants were armed with lathis, tangies (sharp cutting weapons) etc. They started assaulting deceased-Jhore Soren and PW- 7 Kanka with lathis. PW-7 Kanka managed to escape. The appellants continued to beat deceased Jhore Soren. He was beaten to death. Two wives of deceased-Jhore Soren, who had followed him to the courtyard of Saheb Hasda, saw the incident. The women who had assembled there also assaulted the wives, mother and sister of deceased-Jhore Soren. PW-1 Nilmoni, the first wife of deceased-Jhore Soren rushed to Memari Police Station and gave her statement. In her statement, she named all the appellants as persons, who assaulted her husband deceased-Jhore Soren with lathis. On the basis of her statement, investigation was started and upon completion of the investigation, the appellants came to be charged as aforesaid.

(3.)The prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The accused denied the prosecution case. Prosecution case found favour with the trial court which convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Their conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.