- (1.) AII the appellants stand convicted under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
(2.) THE prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of Jatan Baitha (PW 3) recorded on 6.2.1992 at 9.30' hours near the house of Peter Kujur (One of the appellants) at Shea Durga lane is as follows: On that date at about 9.00 A.M. Usha Kujur the daughter of Mikal Kujur, who is the neighbour of the informant (P.W 3) came to the house of the informant and stated to Ramchandra Baitha, @ Chingri who was the son of the informant now deceased that her brother Peter Kujur was calling him in his house. She also added to take price of bamboo pieces and small beams. On this the son of the informant started going along with Usha Kujur while he was in process of washing his mouth. On this informant and his youngest son Bablu Baitha (PW 5) stopped Chingri and asked him not to go with Usha Kujur, but Usha Kujur pursuaded him that as the dispute was over and they are living like good neighbours, so she was taking, him (Chingadi) for taking tea. Chingri @ Ramchandra Baitha followed Usha to her house. In the meantime Bablu Kumar Baitha (PW 5) and the informant (PW 3) remained in the field washing their mouth. but their faces was towards the house of Peter Kujur. All of a sudden, Peter Kujur, dressed in civil shirt and Khakhi pant keeping an iron Oabli in his hand came out of his house in his courtyard, where son of the informant had already reached and caught hold of Chingri. By that time Munni Kujur (one of the appellants), Usha Kujur and Shree Man Nayak appellant (who is now dead), all residents of Shea Durga lane, caught hold of Chingri and tied his hands from behind. Seeing this the Informant and his son (Bablu Kumar Baitha) raised hulla of 'Bachao Bachao', on which the male and female living nearby, stared gathering. Seeing the crowd Peter rushed towards the crowd to cause them hurt with Oabli in his hand then the crowd withdrew from there and stood in the field at a little distance. Then Peter again went near Chingri and asked Munni Kujur, Usha Kujur and Shree Man Nayak loudly to move away and as soon as they went back Peter started assaulting Chingri by Dabli that he had kept in his hand on his head and neck from sharp portion of the Dabli and Chingri fell down on the ground and became restless. The informant and others kept raising hulla from some distance but Peter did not flee away. Thereafter, Peter Kujur keeping his Dabli in his own hand remained standing in the Angan and Shreeman Nayak brought cut a sword and started patrolling alongwith Usha Kujur outside the Angan. Seeing this the informant proceeded towards Sukhdeonagar police station in order to inform the police about the occurrence but in the meantime he saw the police coming and he came back with the police officials to the place where his fardbeyan was recorded and where he found his son was lying dead in the Angan. The cause of occurrence, according to the fardbeyan is that there is a land dispute against they filed an appeal in the Court. He claimed that all the appellants with common intention have committed murder of his son. This fardbeyan is marked as Ext. 3 in this case, on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was drawn and, thereafter, the case was investigated and the charge sheet was submitted. At the time of framing of charge, the only plea taken by the accused persons was that they were not guilty. The defence version of the appellant, Peter Kujur, is that the appellant Peter Kujur, who was an employee of C.I.S.F. and was posted in H.E.C., was suffering from psychiatric from before the occurrence and in course of psychiatric the occurrence, if at all, it was said to be committed was committed. The defence of these other appellants in the appellate Court is that since Peter Kujur himself was insahe and if he committed the offence in that State of in sanity then in that circumstances any sharing of intention on the part of the other two accused i.e. Shreeman Nayak and Munni Kujur did not arise. It is relevant to mention here that Shreeman Nayak, who was appellant no. 1 in Cr. Appeal No. 42 of 1995 (R) is dead and he died during the pendency of this appeal, which is evident from the letter no. 907 dated 5.4.2002 sent by the Superintendent of Lok -Nayak Jaiprakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh, which was obtained by the Registry of this Court after a submission has been made by the learned counsel for the defence on behalf of Shreeman Nayak that he was already dead, that letter was produced by the Registry and thus, it is held that the appeal of Shreeman Nayak has already abated.
(3.) IT is also to be made clear here that in the Court below also this ground of insanity on the part of appellant Peter Kujur has been taken and was sought to be proved by the defence and it was also argued before the learned Court below with which the learned trial Court did not agree. Here in appeal, the prosecution case has been challenged mainly on three grounds: (1) That all the prosecution witnesses are not the eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. (2) Peter Kujur was suffering from lunacy since before the occurrence and at the relevant time of occurrence and the learned Court erred in not giving the benefit of section 84 of the LPC. (3) In respect of appellant Munni Kujur it is stated that as the main appellant i.e. Peter Kujur was himself suffering from psychiatry at the relevant time of occurrence, the question of sharing of common intention could not have arisen and, therefore, the charges under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Munni Kujur is not made out.;