Jharkhand High Court
Hemlal Soren vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 1 October, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 378 of 1997 (P)
[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]
...........
1. Hemlal Soren, S/o Late Alma Soren,
2. Bablu Soren, S/o Baburam Soren,
3. Chandar Marandi, S/o Dhangar Marandi,
4. Shiblal Soren, S/o Thakur Soren,
All residents of village Pipra, P.S. Pathargama, District- Godda
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
...........
For the Appellants : Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
...........
By Court: 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine
witnesses in support of its case.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. This appeal stands disposed of.
11. Since the appellant no. 4 (Shiblal Soren) is on bail,
he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 1st day of October, 2024.
A. Sanga/NAFR
