CHETHRU YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal by the sole appellant is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.1.1988, passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1980, heard analogous with Sessions Case No. 596 of 1985, whereby he convicted the appellant Chethru Yadav under Sections 364, 302/ 34, 201. of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 364 and 302 of the I.P.C, and four years under Section 201 of the I.P.C. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The other accused, namely, Janki Yadav and Prabhu Yadav in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1980, and Shanti Singh and Indradeo Singh in Sessions Trial No. 596 of 1985, who jointly faced trial for charge under Section 302/ 34 of the Penal Code, and Section 201/34 of the Penal Code, were acquitted by the impugned judgment. The prosecution case, as made out in the fardbeyan of one Soniya Devi, wife of Jhari Yadav, resident of Village Bishanpur, P.S. Sono, recorded by A.S.I. Indrajeet Singh of Sono P.S., on 13.11.1978, at 7.35 P.M., at her house, in short, is as follows: - (i) The informant stated that her son Arjun Yadav had illicit relationship with the wife of appellant Chethru Yadav, son of Munna Yadav, of the same village. At about 1 P.M., on 11.11.1978, a Saturday, she had gone to Kashoi Ahra for cutting grass. She saw Chethru Yadav (appellant), Janki Yadav, Shanti Singh, Indradeo Singh, holding meeting beneath a Simal tree, and one Prabhu Yadav was also cutting grass in the nearby field. She stated that her son Arjun Yadav who had gone to Sono, returned home in the evening by which time she had also came back after cutting grass. The informant 'sson thereafter took his meal, and was just loitering outside his house One Chethru Yadav, who is named above, came and called him to accompany him. On being questioned, Arjun Yadav stated that he is going out with Chethru Yadav and would return in a short time. The informant stated, that Karu Sah and some other people witnessed her son going together with Chethru Yadav. Her son was wearing one black colour lungi and was also having a watch in his hand. The informant stated that when her son did not return home that night, she went looking for him to the house of Chethru Yadav the following morning. The informant once again found all the aforesaid persons named above, sitting with Chethru Yadav in his house. The informant enquired about her son. To a query regarding the whereabouts of her son, Chethru Yadav feigned ignorance. The informant thereafter made a search of him at various places without any success. She was fully sure that Chethru Yadav and his associates had killed her son and has done away with his dead body to hide evidence. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan (Ext. 3) a formal F.I.R. being Sono P.S. Case No. 3 of 1978 was instituted which has been marked as Ext. 4. After investigation the Police submitted charge -sheet under Sections 364, 302, 201 of the I.P.C. and cognizance of offence under the aforesaid sections was taken and the accused persons were summoned to face trial. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of sessions and charge under Sections 364, 302/34 and 201 of the Penal Code was framed against Chethru Yadav, and charge under Section 302/34 and 201/34 of the Penal Code was framed against other accused persons mentioned aforesaid. The appellant and the other accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) THE prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case, namely, Bhola Singh (P.W. 1), Karu Sah (P.W. 2), Soniya Devi (P.W. 3), Phuleshwar Yadav @ Phuldeo Yadav (P.W. 4) and Kartik Prasad (P.W. 5). Out of the aforesaid five witnesses, only Soniya Devi (P.W. 3), and Phuleshwar Yadav @ Phuldeo Yadav (P.W. 4), are materialState Food & Civil Supplies Corporation witness who have deposed on the point of occurrence. Karu Sah (P.W. 2), who has been cited as an eye witness in the F.I.R., turned hostile. Bhola Singh (P.W. 1), and Kartik Prasad (P.W. 5), both Advocate 'sClerks are formal witnesses.

(4.) BHOLA Singh (P.W. 1) is a formal witness. He is an Advocate Clerk and has identified the handwriting of A.S.I. Ranjeet Singh who had recorded the fardbeyan of P.W. 3, and has been marked as Ext. 1. P.W. 2 Karu Sah, who has been cited as an eye witness in the F.I.R., did not support the prosecution case in his examination -in -chief, and has been declared hostile. However, he has admitted that the informant P.W. 3 was enquiring about the whereabouts of her son. Except for what has been mentioned above, it would be futile to examine his evidence in detail. Detailed examination of his evidence would not serve any useful purpose.