DUKHANI DHOBIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and further convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. However, it has been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case is that while the informant P.W. 1 had gone to cut the earth soil along with his daughter-in-law and his son leaving behind his daughter P.W. 2 and son Arjun Nonia, the deceased. The appellant Dukhani Dhobin came and caught hold of Arjun Nonia took him forcibly even on protest by P.W. 2. Then P.W. 2 informed the informant P.W. 1 immediately, and the occurrence alleged to have been taken place at 3:00 P.M on 10.09.1979. The father came and make out a search of Dukhani Dhobin and his son. Informant found the home of Dukhani Dhobin locked and his son missing. On search around the house of Dukhani Dhobin the dead body was recovered from Aahar at about sun set on the same day. The Chaukidar was informed. The Chaukidar came and remained there till night. The First Information Report was lodged on the next day. After lodging of the First Information Report, investigation proceeded and inquest report prepared which is marked as Ext. 3. The post mortem examination of the dead body and the inquest report revealed that the death was due to incised injury in the upper eye lid as well as injury on the anus and rectum. After investigation, charge- sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and thereafter case was committed to the court of Sessions. The charge was framed. After framing of the charge four witnesses were examined. The witnesses are the informant, daughter of the informant, the doctor who did autopsy on the person of deceased and a formal witness, who has formally proved the inquest report and the formal First Information Report. Ext. 1 is the post-mortem report, Ext. 2 is the First Information Report and Ext. 3 is the inquest report.

(3.) The trial court taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses that there was prior enmity and threat by the appellant and further taking into consideration the evidence of P.W. 2 that Dukhani Dhobin caught hold of the deceased and took away Arjun Nonia in spite of the protest by P.W. 2. P.W. 2 disclosed the taking away of Arjun Nonia to the mother. The mother instructed her to inform the father. Then she went to her father to inform. Her father came and began to search then the dead body was found. The trial court after considering the fact and circumstance of the case and evidence held that this is a case of circumstantial evidence which is so strong and sufficient that there is nothing to disbelieve in the evidence and so it cannot be said that Dukhani Dhobin has not committed the crime held that Dukhani Dhobin is guilty of the commission of equitable homicide under the definition of Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted the appellant under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.