RAJBALLAM MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three appellants have jointly preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') against judgment of their conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2011/14(A) of 2011. By judgment dated 17-04-2013, Sri Niranjan Singh, learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge - V, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Judge') has convicted aforesaid three appellants for commission of offence under Sections 302/34, 364/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.'). By order dated 24-04-2013, the learned Trial Judge has sentenced aforesaid three appellants under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life, under Section 364/34 of the I.P.C., they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Further, by the said order under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C., they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that on 09-07-2010, a written report was submitted by one Ramjee Mehta (P.W.4) nephew of the deceased (Parvati Kunwar) at 08:30 AM. In the said written report, it was stated that the informant was permanent resident of village Metaniya P.S. Rafigunj, District- Aurangabad. His aunt's village was Aat. The informant's Q qvk (fua) Parvati Kunwar and QqQk (fufa) Kuldeep Mahto were issueless and this was the reason that the accused persons (appellants) persuaded his Fua to reside with them in their village. Since last 20 years, they were residing with Rajballam Mahto (appellant no. 1). The accused had also got transferred entire land from his maternal uncle (Fufa) and thereafter, they were keeping both Fua and Fufa with them. About 8-10 years back, informant's Fufa Kuldeep Mahto suddenly died, however; the shradh ceremony was not done by Rajballam Mahto (appellant no. 1). Thereafter, informant's nephew Sujeet Mahto (P.W.2) and Deep Narayan Mahto (P.W.1) performed the shradh ceremony. After death of his fufa, his Fua Parvati Kunwar continued to reside in the house of Rajballam Mahto (appellant no. 1) and she was having meal with them. Since last two years, Rajballam Mahto and his family members had started torturing and assaulting his Fua (deceased), regarding which, his Fua on several occasions had gone to the village of the informant and informed about the said happening. The informant with his Fua after visiting village - Aat had also tried to convince the accused persons not to torture his fua. On 30-06-2010, telephonically the informant got information that his Fua in the night of 22-06-2010 was killed and her dead body was got disappeared. After getting such information, the informant went to the village Aat and inquired about his Fua, then Rajballam Mahto (appellant no. 1) and his family members did not give satisfactory reply. The informant thereafter made hectic search, but he could not get any information. The informant asserted in its written report that he was having full reason & believe that Rajballam Mahto (appellant no. 1), his wife (appellant no. 3) and Balindra Mahto (appellant no. 2) had killed his Fua and disposed of the dead body. The said information was given by the informant in the police station on 09- 07-2010. The informant stated in its written report that his Fua Parvati Kunwar was aged about 70 years. The informant requested to take appropriate action against the F.I.R. named accused persons.

(3.) On the basis of said written report, on 09-07-2010 at 08:30 AM itself, an F.I.R., vide Madanpur P.S. Case No. 145 of 2010, was registered under Sections 302/201/34 of the I.P.C. against all the three appellants. After investigation, the accusation against the appellants was found true and as such, on 12-10-2010 chargesheet was submitted against all the three F.I.R. named accused persons, who are appellants before this Court, under Section 364/34 of the I.P.C. On 09-12-2010 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad took cognizance of the offence under Sections 364/34 of the I.P.C. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of sessions on 13-01-2011 and as such, it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2011. Firstly, on 25-03-2011, joint charge was framed against aforesaid three appellants under Section 364/34 of the I.P.C., however after about three months i.e. on 15-06-2011, separate joint charge under Sections 302/ 34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. was framed.