- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.1.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his brother Phagu Murmu and sentenced to life imprisonment.
(2.) THE prosecution was launched on the basis of the F.i.R. lodged by the informant P.W. 4 - Jagarnath Murmu (brother of the deceased), Briefly stated, prosecution case is that the appellant had two brothers. Among them, Phagu Murmu was the eldest. The informant was next to him and the youngest was the appellant. After the death of their father, they were living separately. The deceased had settled marriage of his daughter with the son of one Churka Marandi of Village -Siris. On 12.11.1995 at about 4 P.M. son of Churka Marandi alongwith other family members came to see his prospective bride, (daughter of the deceased) at his home. According to the local customs, the deceased and his wife alongwith Parwati Soren, Kalan Tudu, Muku Hansda had brought the bride towards southern end of Satlekha field of the Village -Mungadanga where the bridegroom was waiting alongwith his 4 -5 friends. The informant also went there. Negotiations started between them. In the meanwhile, the appellant came there wrapping a blanket. He went near the deceased, who was then sitting and looking down, and suddenly took out the big sickle 'Hasula' and hit on the neck of the deceased repeatedly as a result of which his neck was severed causing his instantaneous death. The cause behind the incident was that the appellant wanted to marry his daughter but against his will and wishes, his eider brother was negotiating marriage of his daughter.
(3.) CHARGE under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. He was put on trial. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied to have committed any offence. The defence of the appellant was that he has been falsely implicated by the informant in order to grab property of his share.;