Hemlal Soren vs State Of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

The affidavit has been filed by the State reveals that the appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 have died.

This appeal abates so far as the appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned.

Heard Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, learned counsel for the surviving appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.07.1997 (sentence passed on 23.07.1997) passed by Sri Swaroopa Lal, learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 284 of 1983 / 24 of 1988, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

The prosecution case reveals that with respect to 15 bighas of land of the informant there was a dispute between the Pradhan of the village and the Santhals namely, Hemlal Soren and others. It has been alleged that on 26.06.1982 a quarrel had ensued in the morning with respect to sowing of seeds due to which the Santhals were assaulted and they had fled away but had returned back at 12:00 Noon with bows and arrows and the victim Hari Mahto who was tending his buffalo was shot by an arrow by Hemlal Soren which resulted in his death.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Pathargama P.S. Case 49 of 1982 was instituted against five accused persons. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 284 of 1983/ 24 of 1988. Charge was framed u/s 302/34 of the IPC which was explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case.

So far as P.W.5 (Karu Mahto) and P.W.7 (Khokha Mahto) are concerned, they have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.

As regards, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are concerned, they claimed themselves to be present in the field when the incident had taken place. They have consistently stated that on the date of the incident the accused persons were forbade from ploughing their land by Sanichar Mahato, Deonarayan Mahato, Bhusan Mahato and Angad Mahato. However, the accused persons had subsequently arrived with bows and arrows and the accused Hemlal Mahato had shot at Hari Mahto who was tending to his buffalo in the field which resulted in his death.

There seems to be a consistent evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 regarding Hemlal Soren firing an arrow upon Hari Mahto which resulted in his death. Though it has been stated by the eye-witnesses that all the accused persons were variously armed but there does not appear to be any seizure with respect to any bows and arrows which would substantiate the case of the prosecution against the defence.

As we have noted above, it is the consistent case of the prosecution that it was Hemlal Soren who had fired an arrow at the deceased Hari Mahto resulting in his death which finds support from the postmortem report as well and save and except some vague allegations about the presence of the other accused persons including the surviving appellant at the place of occurrence the same cannot be construed to mean that there was a common intention on the part of the appellants in committing the murder of Hemlal Soren. The learned trial court has not considered these aspects of the matter while convicting the appellants for the offence u/s 302/34 of the IPC.

We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made above, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.07.1997 (sentence passed on 23.07.1997) passed by Sri Swaroopa Lal, learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 284 of 1983 / 24 of 1988.

This appeal stands disposed of.

Since the appellant no. 4 (Shiblal Soren) is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.