MUNIA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appeals, preferred by each of the appellants, assailing their conviction under Section 364/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and order of sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge at Ara on 29th July, 1989 in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 1988 arising out of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 161 of 1986.

(2.) THE appellants, along with three others, faced the trial before the Court below for the offences under sections 302/34, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code but rest of the accused persons facing trial were acquitted from all the charges whereas the two appellants were found not guilty for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code but were held guilty for the offences under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, stand convicted and sentenced which is under challenge in this appeal by them.

(3.) P.W. 1, Rama Sah, has come to say that murder of the boy Ganesh took place one and half years ago and one evening after sunset while he was Teturning after meeting natural call, met wim ?appellant Gunjeshwari Lal near the well, who was going with Ganesh Ji, five years' old boy. Ori' query the appellant informed that he is carrying him to the Mathia. Roughly after two hours in the same evening during search,of said Ganesh this Witness asserts that he gave this information to the informant. He further asserts that his statement was recorded before the Magistrate. Similar is the statement of RW. 2, Gopal Sah, who also met with appellant and the victim near the well. But, none of these two witnesses are named in the written application, submitted to the police, two days after the occurrence as the persons having any knowledge or providing any information rather Exhibit-5 indicates that it is P.W. 9, Meena, who informed the informant in the next morning about the victim going with appellant Gunjeshwari Lal. But, P.W. 2 in her short deposition, simply said that while she was returning from Mathia could see the appellant Gunjeshwari Lal proceeding with the victim, Ganesh Sah, but she has said nothing about giving any information to any one including the informant at any point of time. So from her evidence nothing transpires whether she passed this information to the informant or not or if passed at what time.