GORAKH SAHNI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appeals at the instance of the six accused persons arise out of a common judgment dated 19.4.1988, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, in Sessions Trial No. 134 of 1979/17 of 1984 State through Gagandeo Sahni v. Gorakh Sahni and Ors. whereby Gorakh Sahni has been convicted under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, for causing the murder of Chameli Devi, the daughter -in -law of Gorakh Sahni, and the wife of Dasai Sahni. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 201 IPC. In so far as the remaining appellants are concerned, they have been convicted under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC for disappearance of the dead body of Chameli Devi. They have each been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) ACCORDING to the fardbeyan of Gagandeo Sahni recorded on 18.9.1978, at 7 p.m., at village Ekona, PS Chiraiya, district East Champaran, that at 6 a.m., he had left his village for the Motihari court reaching there at 10 a.m. There he met a cobbler (chamar). While exchanging pleasantries, he informed Gagandeo Sahni that his daughter married in the house of Gorakh Sahni at village Lalbegia had been murdered by Gorakh Sahni (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 200 of 1988), Harihar Sahni (appellant No. 1), Binda Sahni (appellant No. 2), Dasai Sahni (appellant No. 3), Suraj Sahni (appellant No. 4), Ramashray Sahni (appellant No. 5) of Cr. Appeal No. 201 of 1988, and one Jagarnath Sahni, and have caused disappearance of the dead body. He left for village Lalbagia at about 2 pm. He met one Jaleshwar Sahni at Lalbagia who affirmed the information about the demise of his daughter. At the time of his leaving Lalbagia for his residence, he met Punyadeo Sahni (PW 2), the Sarpanch, Maheshwar Sahni (PW 3) the Mukhia, Ganja Sahi (PW 7), Jodhan Sahni (PW 8), who were discussing the death of his daughter. PW 2 told him that his daughter had been murdered by the aforesaid persons. On the enquiry of PW 2 about the next step be taken, the informant had told him that the dead body should first of all be recovered. PW 2 had then summoned Gorakh Sahni, the father of his son -in -law Dasai Sahni. Gorakh Sahni had informed them that he had committed the murder and the dead body shall not be made over to the informant. He repeated that he will not hand over the dead body whatever be the punishment to him. 2.1 The fardbeyan further says that Chameli Devi, his daughter aged about 20 -25 years, was without any issue. His son -in -law (Dasai Sahni) had illicit relationship with the daughter -in -law of Charman Sahni of village Lalbegia for quite some time. The fardbeyan goes on that his daughter used to dissuade her husband from such activities which always enraged him leading to her being beaten up. Every resident of village Lalbegia was aware of the unhappy relationship between his daughter and son -in -law. He made efforts to locate the dead body of his daughter but could not. He was, therefore, convinced that the appellants herein had murdered Chameli Devi, his daughter, and had caused disappearance of the dead body. The fardbeyan has been marked Ext.2. Formal FIR was accordingly drawn and was registered as GR Case No. 95/78 (Ext.1). The police conducted investigation and submitted charge -sheet against the appellants herein under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34, IPC. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial.

(3.) PW 2 is Punyadeo Sahni, cultivator and village Sarpanch of village Gram Panchayat. A little more than eight years ago, at about 10 a.m., he was taking tea at Lalbegia Hat. PW 3, the village Mukhia, Baruti Sahni, Jodhan Sahni, Ganja Sahni etc. were also sitting there. He joined them. Gagandeo Sahni also reached there and informed them that Gorakh Sahni had murdered the informant's daughter, who is the son -in -law of Gorakh Sahni. On the request of Gagandeo Sahni, they had summoned Gorakh Sahni who arrived there and, on enquiry, had said that he confessed that he had committed the crime and was prepared for any punishment. He has stated in his cross -examination that he has not seen the alleged occurrence himself. He has further stated in his cross -examination that Gorakh Sahni had, on enquiry, said that he had committed the crime.