JOGENDRA SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.04.1990 passed by 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in connection with Sessions Trial No. 51/88 convicting the appellant Jogendra Sah for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the IPC and directing him to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 IPC as well as R.I. for two year under Section 201 of the IPC and further directing the sentence to run concurrently, the appellant named above has filed the instant appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief as per written report (Ext-6) submitted by Baldeo Pandey (PW-12), ASI of Barharia P.S. on 29.07.87 in nut shell is that on 27.07.87 at about 2:30 p.m. Janki Devi wife of Ram Lochan Sah of Pakbalia village, P.S. Barharia, Distt- Siwan had given her statement in front of her house disclosing therein that on the same day at about 7:00 a.m. she along with her son Jogendra Sah had gone to her field for uprooting paddy seedlings lying north to village and to her house at 8:45 a.m. on rumour and then seen mob having assembled at her house and her daughter-in-law Kanti Devi aged about 19 years wife of Jogendra Sah was lying dead in burnt condition in a room located at southern western corner of the house. On query her neighbour Bihari Sah had disclosed that after seeing smoke coming out from room, he tried to go inside but found out the main entrance gate closed from inside. Then thereafter, he climbed over the roof with the help of ladder and then after coming down inside the house, opened the main gate enabling the co-villagers to come inside and found the wife of Jogendra Sah dead on being burnt. He further found Tasuli (a small metal vessel) kept over stove (Chulha). So, Janki Devi had occasion to believe that her daughter-in-law had died during course of preparing food.

(3.) THE defence case as is evident from the mode of cross-examination as well as from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that one of complete innocence as well as false implication of the appellant. It has further been asserted that he was not at all present at the relevant time at his house rather he was away to his field along with his mother for uprooting paddy seedlings and they had reached their house only after being informed regarding the accidental fire in their house leading to sever burn injuries on the deceased. Furthermore, it has been explained by the appellant that he along with his family members were falsely implicated at the instance of Mahipal Singh, his elder Sarhu with whom he had strained relation on the issue of borrowing of money which the appellant had already paid and to support this part of defence DW-1, Ash Mohammad was examined.