R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) ALL the five appellants were put on trial to face charges under Sections 302, 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that they in prosecution of their common object committed murder of Gundi Murmu. The trial Court having found the appellants guilty sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Further the appellants Sural Tudu, Harchand Tudu and Burhna Tudu were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code whereas appellants Arshu Tudu @ Putul Tudu and Singo Tudu were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 13.7.1998 while the informant Rupai Murmu (PW 4) at about 5 p.m. was in a field, he saw all these appellants sowing paddy seedlings in a field belonging to his cousin Gundi Murmu (deceased). His cousin Gundi Murmu, who was there with his buffalo at nearby field forbade them from doing so, upon which Suraj Tudu shot an arrow upon his cousin Gundi Murmu and the other appellants, namely, Harchand Tudu and Burhna Tudu, armed with farsa rushed to kill Gundi Murmu, who fled from there but while he was fleeing Sural Tudu again shot an arrow causing injury to Gundi Murmu, as a result of which he fell down in the field of Sarju Patar and then Harchand Tudu and Burhna Tudu cut the neck of the deceased by farsa. Thereafter the appellants Putul @ Arshu Tudu and Singo Tudu indiscriminately assaulted the deceased with lathi. The deceased breathed his last there. Thereafter they dragged him to field where they were sowing seedling of paddy. After the occurrence the informant Rupal Murmu (PW 4) came to Dalbhumgarh Police Station along with his nephew Matal Murmu (PW 9) and Samir Patra (PW 3) and gave his fardbeyan at 10 p.m. on 13.7.1998 itself, upon which a case was registered and Investigating Officer Hriday Narayan Singh (PW 6) took over the investigation of the case. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer came to the place of occurrence and made inquest on the dead body and found one arrow embedded at right side of the waist and one arrow embedded at the right arm. Apart from that, cut injuries were also found over the neck and right waist. The arrows having been extracted by the doctor were seized (under seizure list Ext. 3/1). On holding inquest on the dead body, Inquest Report (Ext. 2) was prepared. The Investigating Officer recovered farsa said to have been used in a murder from the house of appellant Suraj Tudu which was seized under seizer list (Ext. 3). The dead body was sent to Ghatshila Hospital where Dr. Om Shankar (PW 8) did autopsy on the dead body on 14.7.1998 and found the following antemortem injuries : '' (i) Arrow, metal portion only in the right arm near the elbow 2 cm. deep. Full arrow in the right lower side back of chest 3.5 cm. deep piercing the liver. (iii) Sharp cut 3 cm. x 1 cm. on right temporal region including pinna. Bone deep fracture of temporal bone underlying haematoma of brain. (iv) Sharp cut 10 cm. x 2 cm. bone deep right side lower neck. Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India (v) Sharp cut 8 cm. x 1.5 cm. right side upper neck spine bone separated. (vi) Fracture left lower arm with sharp cut 3 cm. x 1.5 cm. bone exposed. (vii) Sharp cut 30 cm. x 3 cm. back of right shoulder muscle deep. (viii) Sharp cut 28 cm. x 2.5 cm. bone deep on mid back right side. (x) Sharp cut 30 cm. x 3.5 cm. muscle deep on the back over the pelvis. Doctor Om Shankar (PW 8) issued post -mortem examination report (Ext. 4) with an opinion that death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage and damage to vital organ caused by above injuries by sharp cutting substances.
(3.) AFTER completion of investigation, police submitted charge -sheet against the appellants and cognizance of the offences was taken and in due course, when the case was committed to the Court of session, charges were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.;