GOVIND YADAV, SON OF BASU YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KATARIA, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- MUNGER Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 29.10.2004 and the order of sentence dated 1.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Munger in Sessions Case of 100/2004 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/ - under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for six months. The prosecution case as disclosed in the fardbeyan (Ext.1/2) is that the informant Nageshwar (P.W.1) got information on 12.09.2003 at about 12.30 P.M. that his niece Indu Devi (deceased) was killed by his son -in -law Govind Yadav (appellant) by hanging. Thereafter, he went to the house of his niece Indu Devi and found that her dead body was lying in the courtyard and the appellant has fled away. It has been further alleged that prior to the occurrence, Indu Devi (deceased) was tortured by the appellant. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Muffasil P.S. Case of 291/2003 dated 12.09.2003 was instituted against the sole appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. After investigation, charge -sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions. The charge was framed under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant to which he denied and claimed to be tried.

(2.) THE defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There was good relationship between the deceased and her husband (appellant). The appellant had not misbehaved or tortured the deceased.

(3.) THE learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There was god relationship between the appellant and the deceased. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. It has wrongly been held that there are strong circumstances and the circumstances are well interlinked to show that the appellant has committed the occurrence.