JAIRAM OJHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under section 302, IPC. and sentenced to R. I. for life for having committed the murder of his niece Sulabha alias Sulochana Dei aged about six years on 9-2-1965.

(2.) FATHER of the deceased Sulochana and the appellant are two brothers who were living in the same house, but in separate mess. The mother (PW. 1) of the deceased was absent from home for sometime and during her absence, it is said that the accused managed to remove some paddy PW 1 when returned home noticed that some paddy was lying scattered. To enquiry by PW. 1 the accused denied to have any knowledge about the same, but Sulochana informed PW. 1 that it was the accused who had removed the paddy. At this, the accused got annoyed and that this is said to be the motive for the murder.

(3.) AFTER sometime the girl went towards the village-tank for taking bath. The girl, however, did not return. The anxious mother went in search of the girl, but was not able to trace her out. Sometime in the evening, the accused returned home carrying the deadbody of the girl. The mother noticed a swelling on the throat of the daughter. She cried aloud when the villagers gathered there. Later on, it is said that the accused confessed before PW. 1 and some of the witnesses, such as, pws. 5 and 8 that he throttled the girl to death. A case of unnatural death was first recorded by the police on 9-2-65. On the following day, the I. O. (PW. 10)came to the village and suspecting some foul play, on account of the presence of some injuries on the neck of the girl, he sent the deadbody for post-mortem examination by the doctor. PW 2. a lady assistant surgeon made the Dost mortem examination of the deceased and held that it was a case of death by strangulation. The I. O. then drew up an F. I. R (Ex. 4) under Section 302. I. P. C. After investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted and committed to the court of sessions where he was convicted and sentenced a above.