DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD,J. - (1.) BOTH the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C for committing murder of Manta Kui and Jonga Kui and they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for life there under and against the same, this appeal has been directed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 209 of 1992.
(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that the informant, Kanu Hembrum gave fard bayan before the police alleging therein that on 20 -9 -1991 there was Jamuna Festival in the village and in the night at about 8.30 p.m. the accused persons, namely, Rasika Hembrum, Madhua Hembrum, Birbal Hembrum and Chami Kui had come to the house of the informant and asked for Handia but the informant said that there is no Handia available, on which the accused/appellant Rashika Hembrum attacked on him with Bhujali which was warded off by his Palm resulting injury on the Palm. Thereafter the informant fled away out of fear towards Jungle. It is further alleged that he came back in the next morning from the Jungle and found his wife Manta Qui and his elder brother's wife lying dead in the house. The informant's daughter Tulsi Qui and elder brother' daughter Somri Qui narrated the incident to him. According to them, accused Chami Qui, Rasika Hembrum, Madhua Hembrum and Birbal Hembrum assaulted them (deceased) with Bhujali and rod. The cause of occurrence is said to be that Chami Qui claimed her right over six acres of land which belonged to the informant and due to the dispute, they committed such occurrence in order to grave the land, they committed murder. On the basis of the fard bayan, the First Information Report was lodged for the offence under Sections 324/307/302/34 I.P.C. against four named accused persons. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge sheet against six accused persons against whom charge was framed before the trial Court for facing trial to which the accused persons denied the allegation. Witnesses were examined in the trial Court and after hearing both sides, the trial Court convicted and sentence the appellants in the manner as mentioned above. After being aggrieved, both appellants preferred this appeal. While assailing the impugned judgment of the trial Court, Mr. G.C. Sahu submitted vehemently that the trial Court committed gross error in convicting the appellants when other accused persons, who were also charged for the offence under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have already been acquitted and the allegations against all the six accused persons, who were facing trial together, was the same and similar but even then the trial Court has not considered the evidence meticulously. It is further argued that the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. has not been made out as neither the injury report has been produced nor the doctor who said to have examined the informant, has been examined in this case and so, the story as propounded by the prosecution has not been believed by the trial Court. It is further argued that actually there is no eye witness to the occurrence to say that these two appellants had ever caused injury due to which, death was occurred and as such, the impugned judgment is fit to be set aside.
(3.) OBVIOUSLY , the trial Court has not found the case true under Section 307 I.P.C. and the accused/appellants Rasika Hembrum has already been acquitted there under. It is also manifest that six accused persons were charged under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for committing murder in furtherance of common object of which four accused persons have already been acquitted by the trial Court.;