MAHABIR LOHAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment, dated 21st December, 1994, and the order, dated 22nd December, 1994, passed in Sessions Trial No. 441 of 1993 by IIIrd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the accused appellant, Mahabir Lohar, was convicted under Section 314, read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

(2.) In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 18.03.1993 the informant, Somara Tirki, father of the deceased, Nandito Tirki, received information at about 10.00 a.m. at Ranchi from Budhdeo Uraon of his village that his elder daughter, Nandita Tirki, had died at 06.00 a.m. On receiving the information, the informant, along with his son, Bishnu Tirki, rushed to his village home where he found his daughter lying dead and his wife, Hauri Oraon, told him that Mahabir Lohar (accused appellant) had illicit relation with his daughter for some time and it may be possible that she had got pRegulation nt. The informant also learnt from his wife that on 16.03.93 Mahabir Lohar had taken his daughter, Nandita, to Jamtoli where she had got the abortion done by some lady by administering some herbal medicine orally. By the time Nandita reached home she developed pain in her abdomen and nasal bleeding also started and she died. It has been stated in the first information report that 10 to 15 minutes before her death his (informant's) daughter had told about it to her mother. On a written report (Exhibit 2), lodged at the Boro Police Station by the informant, Somara Tirki, the formal first information report (Exhibit 4) was drawn in this case. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet against accused Mahabir Lohar. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the case, committed it to the Court of Sessions for trial.

(3.) The defence of the accused, according to the trend of the cross-examination of witnesses is that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the deceased had been pRegulation nt through some one else.