FAUDI THAKUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment dated 5th December, 2000 passed by Shree Shyam Kishore Sharma, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1995 whereby and whereunder, all the appellants, named above, have been convicted u/S. 302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offences u/S. 302/34 of the I.P.C. each and three years for the offences u/S. 201/34 of the I.P.C. However, both sentences are to run concurrently. To understand the case, it is desirable to give the relationship between the informant, deceased and appellants. Deceased, Most. Gendiya Devi is the mother of Faudi Thakur (A-1), Ramdhani Thakur (A-2) and informant, Lalo Devi (PW-9). Saro Devi (A-4) is the wife of Faudi Thakur (A-1) i.e. daughter-in-law of the deceased. Chameli Devi (A-3) is the mother of Sundari Devi (A-5) and both are next door neighbours of the deceased.

(2.) The case of prosecution is that the informant, Lalo Devi (PW-9), wife of Raj Kumar Thakur and daughter of the deceased Most. Gendiya Devi along with mukhiya, Jageshwar Yadav (PW-1) and some villagers went to police station at about 7.00 P.M. on 3rd August, 1995 and reported that about 20 days ahead on a Friday, appellant, Faudi Thakur (A-1) came to her house and requested her to go to his house for transplanting paddy. She (PW-9) along with her brother Faudi Thakur went to his house in village Bijaiya at about 3/4 P.M. While she was sleeping in the night after taking dinner, she (informant-PW-9) heard cry of her mother, Most. Gendiya Devi. She rushed to Aangan (Backyard) and found that her elder brother, Faudi Thakur, younger brother, Ramdhani Thakur, sister-in-law Saro Devi, neighbour Chameli Devi and Sundari Devi had caught hold of her mother and her mother was in a pool of blood. The informant took a lantern and when went near her mother, found the back side of her neck already cut, her mother was dead. She (informant) tried to shout but the appellants pointed out blood-stained garasa (a sharp weapon to cut fodder) and threatened that they will also cut her (informant) by garasa. So, she had to keep mum. All the appellants, thereafter, put the dead-body in a gunny bag. Her brothers carried away the dead-body, whereas the ladies, appellant Nos. 3 to 5 washed away the blood. The dead-body was put inside a well and filled up by soil. The accused threatened the informant not to divulge of the matter to anybody. Next day, i.e. Saturday, her elder brother, Faudi Thakur sent her to her in-laws house. Further case of the prosecution is that the informant when narrated the occurrence to her villagers, they advised her to go to police station but she could not go because of panic. A day prior to report, the informant told the matter to Rameshwar Modi, who took her to the village. She also informed to Jageshwar Yadav (PW-1). Then the people went near the well and found it filled up with soil. The informant further narrated that her father was an employee of B.C.C.L., Dhanbad, who died. Her mother (deceased) received money on account of death of father. The amount was deposited in the name of her mother. Her mother (deceased) also got some amount after selling some land which she was keeping with her. Her brothers were suspecting that the mother (deceased) will give the amount to the informant as may donate some lands to her. In this regard, her brothers also assaulted their mother earlier. The wife and daughter of Kartik Thakur (A-3 and A-5) were instigating her brothers and sister-in-law (Bhabhy) in this act. On this information (Exhibit-2) Barhi P.S. Case No. 178/94, dated 3rd August, 1994 was registered u/Ss. 302/201/34 of the I.P.C., Jageshwar Thakur (PW-1), Parmesh-war Thakur (PW-4), Sahdeo Hazam (PW-3) and Sona Choudhary (PW-2) also put their signature in the Fardbeyan. Cognizance was taken and after submission of charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session. Charges were explained to the appellants, who pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and took defence that they were falsely implicated.

(3.) Before averting to the relevant contention of the parties, it is necessary to refer relevant summary of the evidence rendered by the prosecution which resulted in the conviction of the appellants. PW-1, Jageshwar Yadav is the mukhiya of the village. PW-2, Sona Choudhary, PW- 3, Sahdeo Hazam, PW-4, Parmeshwar Thakur, PW-5, Rupan Thakur, PW-8, Hulash Thakur are the cultivators and hearsay witnesses. All of them came to know of the incidence from informant, Lalo Devi (PW-9), the only eye-witness. PW-6, Kobi Thakur and PW-7, Sofi Mian have been tendered. PW-10, Dr. S. K. Sinha is a doctor, who conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased and submitted report on 5th August, 1994, whereas PW-11, Shohan Gope, Sub-Inspector of Mandu police station is the I.O. Dr. S. K. Sinha (PW-10) in his evidence stated that he conducted the post-mortem report on 5th August, 1994 and found as follows :