ANIL NAYAK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Sessions Trial No. 129 of 2006, the sole appellant was convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs.4,500.00 under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to serve SI for 5 months. The appellant was further convicted and sentenced to RI for 5 years under sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of the dead body of Bibhishan Barik.

(2.) Seraikella P.S. Case No. 51 of 2006 was registered on 28/6/2006 against Anil Nayak, Birbal Nayak and Mogla Pramanik under Sec. 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In his fardbeyan which was recorded on 28/6/2006 at 10:00 AM at the place where dead body of Bibhishan Barik was recovered, Yudhishthir Barik who is the full brother of Bibhishan Barik has stated that on 26/6/2006 he found his brother in the company of Anil Nayak, Birbal Nayak and Mogla Pramanik enjoying drinks (Haria) in the market. He asked his brother to go back home however he declined and did not leave the market. When his brother did not come back home, next day he started search for his brother and on 28/6/2006 he received information that a dead body has been found near a canal about one kilometer away from village Bhadrudih. Then he along with his family went there and identified the body of his brother. An information was sent to the police and his statement was recorded on the spot. He expressed his doubt that Anil Nayak, Birbal Nayak and Mogla Pramanik in course of a quarrel had killed his brother. The witnesses stated before the police that Bibhishan Barik was seen in the company of the appellant and there was a quarrel between them regarding goat head. The statement of Birbal Nayak was recorded under sec. 164 Cr.P.C. The investigating officer recorded confessional statement of the appellant and arrested the appellant on 2/7/2006 who suffered a disclosure statement before him. He prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The Medical Board which conducted postmortem examination found swelling on the whole body, tongue out of oral cavity, bleeding from the right ear and multiple tiny marks of injuries over the face. The trachea and hyoid bone of Bibhishan Barik were found broken and diopharm of right ear was ruptured. The injuries were found antemortem in nature and in the opinion of the Medical Board cause of death was asphyxia, caused due to broken trachea and hyoid bone. In the cross-examination, Dr. Vinay Siddhesh who was one of the members of Medical Board has denied the suggestion that Bibhishan Barik died due to consuming alcohol. After the investigation a chargesheet was submitted and as noticed above the appellant has faced the trial on the charge under Sec. 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge has observed that PW-1 is a reliable witness; the other prosecution witnesses were not confronted with their previous statements, and; the prosecution has proved charges against the appellant.

(3.) In paragraph no. 36 of the judgment under challenge, the learned trial Judge has observed as under: "36. From careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, it is apparent that there is direct evidence against the accused and that evidence is evidence of PW-1 who has well established the fact that by causing injuries on the deceased, accused of this case has knowingly and intentionally caused death of the deceased and he has disappeared the evidence of murder with intention to screen himself from the charge of murder. The evidence of PW-1 finds corroboration from the evidence of PW-7,8 as well as Ext. 2. The statement u/s 164 Cr.PC of this witness has been marked as Ext. 5 on admission of the accused. Hence, this Ext.5 is also corroborative and supportive to the evidence of PW-1. There is evidence of PW-5 & 6 who have clearly established the fact related to extra-judicial confession made by the accused before them in respect to commission of offence of this case. The evidence of PW-2, 3 & 9 is establishing the circumstance that just prior to the commission of occurrence of this case, deceased was last seen with the accused. Another circumstance has also been proved by the witnesses that while in the market deceased was demanding head of the goat from the accused. Then it was refused by the accused which caused annoyance between accused and deceased. Another circumstance has also been established by the evidence that PW-1, accused and deceased consumed country-made wine in that very market and this fact is also being corroborated with the evidence of PW-7 and Ext.2. Another circumstance has also been well established by the prosecution against the accused that, after making extra-judicial confession accused disappeared from his house who was absconding till 2/7/6. The evidence brought by the prosecution during trial has been explained to the accused during statement u/s 313 Cr.PC to which he has replied generally saying that "He does not know about it or it is not the fact". Nothing has been brought into evidence of the witness that informant or witnesses are having enmity with the accused. In this way, there is no any chance of false implication of the accused in commission of occurrence of this case."