ADITYA KUMAR BISWAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE $ole appellant stands convicted under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ( ''the Code '', in short) and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the former offence and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the latter, as also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ - and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of six months, the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) INFORMANT Gujri Devi, the mother of deceased Raushan Mandal, got her fardbeyan recorded on 14.8.1993 at 10 A.M. (Ext. 2) stating therein that on the preceding day her son Raushan Mandal, aged about 10 years, had gone for fishing to Kumarkhand Dhar. At about 3 P.M. the appellant came to the Angan of the informant and told her that he already had killed her son by throttling and was searching the other two who had cut his (fishing) net. When by 5 P.M. Raushan Mandal did nor return, the informant went to the working place (Kamat) of the appellant and. on enquiry, his servant Basudeo @ Munna (P.W. 3), told her that the appellant had killed her son by throttling and had pushed the dead body in the Kumarkhand Dhar putting Gheghawa grass over the body. He also informed that the appellant was searching her other two sons to kill them. The informant then went to Kumarkhand Dhar and located the dead body of her son beneath the water, the head thrust inside of the mud of the Dhar. She took out and kept the dead body there but she could not go to the police station since the night had intervened. When in the morning she was going to the police, in the way she met the police officer whom she gave her statement.

(3.) OUT of 10 witnesses examined, P.Ws. 1 and 2, Munna Kumar Mandal and Lalan Kumar Mandal admittedly both cousins of the deceased, have spoken out as eye witnesses whereas P.W. 3, servant of the appellant, did not support the prosecution case hence was declared hostile. P.W. 4 is informant and P.W. 5 is a witness to the inquest report whereas P.W. 6 was tendered for cross -examination. P.W. 7 has given hearsay statement about drowning of the victim. P.W. 8 is Chana Devi who was claimed by defence to be the Bhabhi of the informant but this witness denied any such relationship. P.Ws. 9 and 10 (Pramod Kumar and Ashok Kumar Choudhary) are the investigating Officer, and the Doctor, who had coducted autopsy, respectively.