TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proved against five accused persons, namely, A-1 to A-4 and A-9. As against accused Nos. 5 to 8, the Trial Court considered it safe to record their conviction under Section 147 IPC only. Those held guilty under Section 302/149 IPC were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year was inflicted under Section 148 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused Nos. 5 to 8, who are all women, were directed to be released on admonition under Section 3 of the Prohibition of Offenders Act. Vide order dated 19th June 1989, the trial of Suku Majhi was directed to be separated. Nine accused persons were tried in present proceedings. All the accused persons and the deceased, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsons are stated in the FIR, the overt act of assault on the deceased is attributed specifically to Chunnu, Lallu and Chorey (A-1, A-2 A-9). No other accused is specifically alleged to have assaulted the deceased or anyone else. The only act attributed to Chunnu, Lallu and Chorey is of dealing blows on Suphal Hansda by tangi using its reverse side and no other accused is attributed with any specific overt act nor the use of any other weapon of offence with which the accused persons are alleged to have been armed, such as arrows and lathis. This is to be noted in particular because, as would be seen shortly hereinafter, the prosecution has tried to substantially improve its case during the course of investigation and then again during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... containing clotted blood. Left lung was lacerated. Thoracic cavity contained six ounces of blood. In the opinion of Dr. Sarangi, the cause of death was injury No. 1. During cross-examination Dr. Sarangi stated that the injuries on the head were two in number. The injuries could not have been caused by a single blow. Even before stating what was deposed to by Mannu (PW-9) before the Trial Court, we cannot resist observing that his deposition is substantially in departure from the earliest version of the incident as contained in the First Information Report. Mannu has substantially improved his version of the incident. He stated that Chorey, Lallu Chunnu were armed with Tangi. Gurua, Toro and Suku were armed with arrows and bows and Teng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Trial Court and marked as Exhibit-7. The present incident is dated 21.06.1987. It appears that the proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. came to be decided ex-parte. The suggestion given to Mannu (PW-9) in his cross-examination by the defence is that when this incident had taken place and the accused persons were arrested and were in jail, the complainant party acted with haste and got the case decided resulting into an ex-parte order in their favour whereby they were declared to be in possession of the property in dispute on the date of the passing of the preliminary order. It is pertinent to note that no material is available on record to show the date on which the preliminary order was passed. The witness was asked whether he had produced d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was lodged. Though at the trial Mannu alleges all the 10 accused persons to have dealt blows with their respective weapons on the body of his brother Suphal Hansda, but that is certainly not correct. If 10 accused persons had dealt even one blow each, there would have been a minimum of 10 injuries on the person of the deceased. It is the specific case of Mannu that so far as the chest injuries (fracture of ribs) are concerned, it was the result of the accused Gurua having climbed upon the body of the deceased after he had fallen down and then pressed him against the ground. As the fracture of ribs is not accompanied by any apparent injury on the body, in all probability such injuries were not caused by any weapon. The injuries could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction of entries in revenue papers would have revealed who was in actual possession of the land prior to the incident. The Court is just left in doubt guessing whether it was the complainant party in possession of the land illegally obstructed by the accused persons or whether the accused persons were in possession of the land which was sought to be trespassed upon by the deceased and his brother Mannu (PW-9) and the attempted trespass was sought to be prevented and preempted by the accused persons. It is, therefore, clear that the genesis or the root cause of the incident is not known. The most crucial question as to the factum of possession over the land in dispute immediately preceding the date of the incident cannot be determined and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
