BISHWANATH KEWAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution was launched against the appellants and two others on behest of Sitaram Mistry (PW -7) with accusation that on 9th August. 1984, the appellants came to the house of Chhotan Mistry (deceased) and persuaded him to go to Ashok Dham but since the deceased was not possessed of sufficient money to undertake the journey, he expressed his inability. It was alleged that on the following day the appellants again visited house of the deceased paid Rs. 501 - to meet expenses of journey and on persuasion, despite his reluctance, took him in their company. It was alleged that on 12th August, 1984, when the appellants returned to the village. Chhotan Mistry had not yet returned and when worried family members of the deceased made inquiries from them they had been making evasive reply which did not satisfy them. Pursuant to that on 13th August, 1984 when Dulo Kewat, who too had accompanied the deceased with his wife while going to Ashok Dhani came inquiries were made from him also and he too expressed his ignorance about where about of Chhotan Mistry. The worried family members made hectic searches for Chhotan Mistry but that did not yield salutary result. It was on' 15th August, 1984 that Jagdish Mistry, brother -in -law of the deceased visited house of Dhaneshwar Mistry and finding Chhotan Mistry not there, made inquiries about him. As Chhotan Mistry had not yet returned to his house they approached mukhiya of the local gram panchayat who collected villagers and asked the appellants to accompany them to village Charokhara where the dead body was allegedly thrown in a. well. Though the appellants made commitment before the mukhiya to accompany him to village Charokhara on the following morning they were found absconding,. It was alleged that on 16th August 1984 the mukhiya in the company of the family members of the deceased and also other villagers rushed to village Charokhara where they found the Police making searches for the dead body in the well and it was alleged that in their presence the wearing apparels of the deceased and also the appellants were recovered kept in a gunny bag with boulders put therein, and with these accusation, ofter the police was set in motion investigation commenced. on conclusion of which the Police laid charge sheet against the appellants alone.

(2.) IN the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether eight witnesses including the informant Family members of the deceased, mukhiya of the concerned gram panchayat and also the Investigating Officer. The defence of the appellants before the trial, Court and also this Court was plain denial of entire allegations and they ascribed their false implication at the instance of Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, who happened to be mukhiya of concerned gram panchayat and was inimical to them, and the trial Court on evaluation of testimony of witnesses placed on the record relied on certain piece of evidences and rendered finding of guilt under Sections 302/34 and also under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced the appellants to undergo life imprisonment and also rigorous imprisonment for ten years on these count, respectively. The trial Court also recorded verdict of guilt against the appellants under Section 202, IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years.

(3.) UNDISPUTED fact of the case are that ofter the appellants took the deceased in their company on lath August, 1984, there was no trace of him and the dead body of Chhotan Mistry had not yet been recovered. Though Jagdish Mistry (PW -4) would allege about rumour having been floated about dead body having been thrown in a well of village Charokhara. No witness would Claim about any dead body having been recovered from the well. The persuasion made by the appellants for taking Chhotan Mistry in their company, recovery of Yearing apparels of the deceased and also the appellants from the well, the well stinking, there being no trace of Chhotan Mistry, and Bishwanath Kewat making extra judicial confession for killing the deceased, for theft committed by him, were considered to adverse evidences by the trial Court for recording verdict of guilt against the appellants.