IMPORTANT POINT
Direct ocular evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, making motive irrelevant in murder cases.

JUDGMENT :

Per Ananda Sen, J. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction dated 28th November, 2015 and Order of Sentence dated 3rd December, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.314 of 2012 arising out of Silli Police Station Case No.06 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.224 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The F.I.R. is at the instance of P.W.-8 Ganesh Munda. In the fardbeyan which was recorded on 15.01.2012 at 9.30 hours, he states that on 15.01.2012 Mahesh Munda his brother and cousin Veer Singh Munda were in the barn (khaliyan) and was tying paddy which was stored there. Thereafter the deceased left the barn with the ox to make them drink water. When he went outside the barn, Bansidhar Munda son of Late Bopa Munda armed with “tabla” (sharp cutting weapon like chopper) chased the deceased Veer Singh Munda from behind. The brother of Bansidhar Munda, namely, Murlidhar Munda armed with “tabla” (sharp cutting weapon like chopper) confronted him from front. Thereafter, in front of house of Harihar Munda, Bansidhar Munda caught hold of the deceased and with the sharp cutting weapon which he was carrying assaulted the deceased on his stomach as a result of which he fell injured and died. He also stated that their family members are eye-witness to the said occurrence. He also narrates in the fardbeyan, the reasons for the said occurrence. He states that as there were some dispute between the family members which took place one and half years ago as criminal case is pending before the court. To take revenge the deceased was murdered. Bansidhar Munda and his brother Murlidhar Munda had committed murder of the deceased.

3. After investigation, chargesheet being Charge Sheet No.16 of 2012 dated 7th March, 2012 was submitted against the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi on 20th March, 2012 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 2nd April, 2012. Charges were framed under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was read over and explained to the appellants. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, had examined altogether 9 (nine) prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Vasudeo Singh Munda; P.W.2 Lakhindra Singh Munda; P.W.3 Mahesh Munda; P.W.4 Boby Devi; P.W.5 Guruvari Devi; P.W.6 Manoj Kumar No.II; P.W.7 Dr. Pawan Kumar; P.W.8 Ganesh Munda(the informant) and P.W.9 Anjani Kumar (the I.O.).

5. In addition to examining the above witnesses, the prosecution also got the following documents exhibited: -

Ext. 1 Signature of P.W.-3 Mahesh Munda on fardbeyan.

Ext. 2 Postmortem report of the deceased Veer Singh Munda.

Ext. 3 Signature of informant Ganesh Munda on fardbeyan.

Ext. 4 Fardbeyan of informant Ganesh Munda.

Ext.5 Formal F.I.R.

Ext.6 & 6/1 Memo of arrest of accused Banshidar Munda and Murlidhar Munda.

6. Upon conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the appellants was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On behalf of the defence only one witness Teju Munda has been examined as D.W.-1.

10. After hearing the arguments of the parties, upon conclusion of the trial, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the Judgment of Conviction dated 28th November, 2015 and Order of Sentence dated 3rd December, 2015, as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

11. Challenging the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal

12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that these two appellants h