1. The sole appellant is before this Court in appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.T. Case No.310 of 2008 whereby and
whereunder appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC.
2. Informant is the father of the deceased. As per his fardbeyan, on 13.06.2007 after days’ work, he returned at 7 O’clock in the evening. At
around 8 O’clock, Yamuna Ganjhu and Raju Ganjhu of Village Lawalong and said that they will be staying there in the house, as the night had set
in. Deceased- Yamuna Sao was acquainted with them therefore, he permitted them to stay at night on the cot outside the house. After about an hour
or so, they went away and the informant after taking dinner, closed the door and went to sleep. At around 11 O’clock, someone knocked the door
calling Yamuna Sao. At this, when the informant refused to open the door, 30 â€" 35 persons broke open the door and entered into the house. Among
the intruders where the appellant, Krishna Yadav, who was the MCC Commander, and the two persons who had taken temporary refuge in their
house at night being Yamuna Ganjhu and Raju Ganjhu. They dragged out deceased- Yamuna Sao from the haystack and hacked him to death after
taking him outside the house. They stayed for a while near the house Dilchand Sao and while returning said that they had collected Rupees One Lakh
which was amount given for contract killing. Informant suspected that his son had been killed by the MCC extremists at the instance of his brother-
Dilchand Sao and his five named sons with whom the informant had land dispute.
3. On the basis of fardbeyan, Katkamsandi P.S. Case No.191/2007 was registered against this appellant, 10 named accused persons and 30â€"35
unnamed persons. Police on investigation, submitted charge against the appellant, Dilchand Sao, Jhaman Sao, Neman Sao @ Jhubar Sao and the
supplementary charge sheet was submitted against Phuleshwar Sao and Dhanu Sao. All the accused persons were put on trial under Section
302/120B of the IPC.
4. Altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the relevant documents including post mortem examination report and
FIR were adduced into evidence and marked as exhibit. Naxal leaflets, Tangi and Danda were also produced and were marked as material exhibits.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that there are contradictions in the account of witnesses and the appellant has been
convicted only on the basis of suspicion. The appellant had no land dispute with the informant party. The identification of the appellant was under
cloud for the reason that extremists had covered their face and it was dark night.
6. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is argued that he was named in the FIR and the witnesses have stated
that he was not only present, but also directly participated in the killing. Appellant was named and identified during trial.
7. This is yet another case which exposes the precarious life conditions of common citizen in remote areas infested with MCC extremists. After the
informant family had retired for the day, at around 11 O’clock armed band of 35 persons descended on their house looking for his son Yamuna
Sao (deceased). The door was broken open, deceased was dragged out and hacked to death.
P.W. 1 is the mother of the deceased aged 75 years. She has given vivid account of the incidence and has testified to the presence of Pravil Ganjhu
@ Palamu Ganjhu there. At para 4, she has deposed that the appellant had a gun in his hand. She has deposed that she did not know the actual
assailant.
P.W. 3 is the informant of the case. He has deposed in para 2 that it was this appellant who has asked him to open the door. At para 2, he has also
deposed that it was this appellant, who had dragged the deceased from the haystack.
P.W. 4 is the daughter of the deceased. She has corroborated the testimony of other witnesses regarding the factum of manner of incidence. She has
also deposed that it was this appellant, who had dragged the deceased from the haystack. In her cross-examination at para 11, she has deposed that
she identified Pravil Ganjhu and Dilchand Sao.
8. From these evidence, it is apparent that actual incidence took place in two stages; first was when the deceased was dragged out from the haystack
and taken outside the house, and second was the actual killing that took place outside. As deposed by the father and daughter of the deceased, it was
this appellant who had dragged the deceased hiding in the haystack. In the second stage, there is no eyewitness to the gory incidence of hacking of the
deceased just outside the house. As both the events were closely connected to form part of the same transaction, the act of the appellant in dragging
the deceased outside made him the direct participant in the offence. Evidence of witnesses become relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as
the first and second stage of the crime take place contemporaneously without any break, and the witnesses have attributed of spotting and dragging
the deceased out of his hiding.
9. On the basis of these direct eye witness account, we do no find any merit in the plea that this appellant had not been identified by the witnesses.
Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is affirmed.
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.
