RAMJITBELDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMJIT Beldar, the sole appellant in this appeal, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.6.1997 and order dated 19.7.1997 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda, in Sessions Trial No. 394 of 1995, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC).

(2.) THE case of prosecution as disclosed in the Fardbeyan (Ext.2) of informant Raj Kumar Thakur (PW -8), in short, is that informant used to cultivate the land of one Madan Mahto and was incharge of Piter Machine of Madan Mahto with which he used to irrigate the land. About a week prior to 10.6.95 handle of this machine was stolen by the appellant and when this fact came in the knowledge of informant and other villagers, informant asked the appellant to return the handle who at first avoided to return the handle but on pressure two days prior to 10.6.95 returned the handle to informant and at that time informant out of anger had abused him for committing theft of handle on which some altercation between the informant and appellant took place. On 10.6.95 at 12 O&aposclock in the noon Anil Thakur alias Chhotu Thakur, minor son aged about 7 years of informant, had gone towards south of village for playing where the appellant caught hold of him and threw him on the ground and assaulted him with a hard blunt weapon crushing his face as a result of which he died and thereafter the appellant concealed the dead body of the son of informant in the heap of husk in the &aposbathan&apos of Nagina Kewat (PW -7) which was seen by a village boy named Mantu Beldar (PW -6) and when Mantu Beldar inquired from the appellant what he had concealed in the heap of husk the appellant replied that he had kept some mangoes there to ripen. Mantu Beldar in greed of mangoes when made search in the heap of husk he found dead body of the son of informant concealed there and he then raised &aposhulla&aposthat appellant after killing the minor son of informant had kept his dead body in the heap of husk. Informant, his family members and villagers came running in the &aposbathan&apos of Nagina Kewat (PW -7) and found the dead body of son of informant in the heap of husk and blood was oozing from the nose of the dead body. The villagers seeing the dead body of son of informant became agitated and started searching the appellant and finally caught hold of him and in the meantime Chaukidar Karu Paswan also came there and on query the appellant made extra judicial confession before the villagers that he had committed the murder of son of informant because informant had abused him on account of theft of handle of Piter Machine. The Fardbeyan of informant was recorded on 10.6.95 at about 4 PM in the &aposbathan&aposof Nagina Kewat by S.l. Shashidhar Upadhyay (PW -10). Formal FIR (Ext. 1) under section 302/201 IPC was drawn and after investigation police submitted chargesheet against the appellant. The case was committed to the court of Session where charges under sections 302/201 IPC were framed against the appellant and because the appellant denied the charges against him, he was put on trial and after trial he was found guilty under section 302 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. So far charge under section 201 IPC is concerned, the appellant was not found guilty and he was acquitted of this charge. No witness on behalf of appellant has been examined but from the trend of cross examination of prosecution witnesses the case of appellant appears to be complete denial of charge against him and his false implication in this case.

(3.) DR . Rabi Ranjan Rajesh (PW -9) in his evidence has said that on 11.6.95 when he was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif he held post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and found that body was decomposed with four swellings and distended abdomen with peeling of skin at places and swollen, blackened bruise over whole face including forehead and frontal region of skull and death in his opinion was caused due to head injury caused by hard blunt substance and time elapsed since death was within 36 hours to 48 hours. He has proved his post mortem examination report (Ext. 3). From his evidence it appears that death of deceased was homicidal.