JAGDISH HARIJAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals were filed by the same appellant and were heard together and being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) The sole appellant, namely, Jagdish Harijan has been convicted under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence has been awarded to him under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The prosecution as disclosed in the fardbeyan of the informant which was recorded on 16.3.1995 at 1.00 p.m. is that on 8.3.1995, the informant's son Shams Tamrez, aged about 10 years left his house at about 4.00 p.m. after stealing a sum of Rs. 650/-. The informant searched for his son in the nearby villages but could not find any trace of him. He waited till the next day but his son did not return back home, so, he got suspicious and v/ent to search him in the hotel and also went to Purnia Bus Stand but could not find him. Thereafter, on 13.3.1995, the informant was going to Amour in search of his son and when he was crossing through village Pahariya, he learnt from the villagers that the appellant was seen going with his son on bicycle and he reached his son at the house of one Sabu Harijan of village Pahariya. The informant went to the house of Sabu Harijan who disclosed to him that a day before i.e. on 12.3.1995 the appellant had brought a boy aged about 10 years and asked him to kept the boy for the night and disclosed that he is a Harijan boy, so he kept the boy at his house and his wife served meal to him but that boy refused to take meal saying that he is Muslim and will not take meat in the house of "Hari". His wife then offered him "Bhunja" which he consumed. But at the same time, she entertained doubts that the appellant had disclosed to them that the boy belongs to "Hari" community but he is Mohammedan. On the following morning, the appellant came and took away the boy. The informant returned back to village peer Majnoo on Monday (13.3.1995) itself and enquired from the appellant the whereabouts of his son on which the appellant became nervous and denied that he had taken away his son. The informant threatened him to file case and entered in his house but when he came out of the house he found that the appellant had filed away with his cycle towards Rauta. The informant chased the appellant and suspected that the appellant might have gone to village Pahariya, so, he went to village Pahariya and found that the appellant was altercating with the wife of Sabu Lal as to why she disclosed that he had brought the informant's son and kept at her place to which the wife of Sabu Lal replied that she stated the truth. The informant again requested the appellant with folded hands to return back his son on which the appellant agreed to return back his son and fled away from there. The informant came to Rauta Haat searching the appellant and went to Kabristan situated at the outskirts of the village where he met few girls tending she goats who were talking amongst themselves that the dead body of a small boy is being eaten up by animals at the bank of river Das. The informant went to the bank of river Das and found that both the legs of his son were buried in the sand of the river, whereas, his body was bent towards front and the dead body was of his son. The informant also noticed a Tabiz in the neck of his son and clearly identified his dead body. The informant started crying and many villagers assembled at that place and identified the dead body of the informant's son. The informant has alleged that his son was killed in between Monday to Wednesday last by the appellant, who buried the dead body of his son in the sand in order to screen the offence committed by him. On the basis of the fardbeyan, a case under Section 302/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant on 16.3.1995 and after completing the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under the aforesaid counts. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and finally disposed of by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia, who passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.