- (1.) BY Court. All the nine, above named, respondents, who were charged under Section 302/34 IPC for intentionally committing the murder of Ganesh Manjhi in furtherance of their common intention on 18/11/1990 between 8.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. at Village Hiradih in the District of Dumka, were acquitted from the said charge by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 193 of 1991 by the impugned judgment dated 04/10/1991. Against the said judgment of acquittal, the State has filed the present government appeal.
(2.) THE facts, in short, are that on 18/11/1990 at about 1.30 p.m., Ganesh Manjhi (the deceased) left his house for Baniyara Hat. His family members were waiting for him but he did not return till evening. At about 8 -9 p.m., there was hulla in the village that a thief had been apprehended near Dhobai River, while he was committing theft of Govt. Appeal (DB) No. 1 of 1992 P paddy. The said thief was beaten by the villagers. When this hulla spread in the village, then all the villagers including males, females, children etc. came out of their houses. The informant, alongwith her son Ashok Manjhi, elder brother of her husband (Bhaisur) Farsi Manjhi, nephew Dukhan Manjhi and villager Kumbhkarn Manjhi went near Dhobai River and found that her husband (the deceased) was lying there in injured condition and at that place pulses, potatoes and some vegetables were scattered. At that place, the informant allegedly saw that all the nine respondents, herein, were present there and they were dragging her husband and they were also assaulting him. When her ˜Bhaisur' wanted to give water to the injured, those nine persons became ready to assault him. Thereafter, the respondents dragged the injured towards their own house. The injured is said to have died near the house of Respondent no. 4 Motilal Manjhi in the village. The informant stated that she remained in her house for the whole night and in the next morning only she went to the police station with other villagers to give information about the occurrence. The motive for such occurrence was said to be the land dispute between the parties. In order to establish the charges, altogether 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The learned trial court, on the basis of the evidence and materials on record, acquitted the accused respondents from the charges, holding that the case of the prosecution was doubtful and not a single independent witness was examined in the case though the definite case of the prosecution was that a large number of villagers had assembled at the place of occurrence but not a single witness came to support the prosecution case. Govt. Appeal (DB) No. 1 of 1992 P
(3.) CHALLENGING the impugned judgment of acquittal, Miss Anita Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submitted that in view of the specific and direct evidences of PWs. 1, 2 and 3, who were the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, the trial court ought not to have acquitted the accused respondents.;