KISHORE MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court This appeal arises from the judgment dated 25.09.2003 passed by the learned 1 st Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamtara in S.C. Case No.05 of 2001/172 of 2001 convicting the appellant under Sections 302/201 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 I.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that Fatik Mandal (P.W.9) lodged a 'Fard Bayan' on 20.05.2001 at 10:30 a.m. before the police that in the previous night i.e. on 19.05.2001 when he was going to sleep after taking meals at about 9:15 p.m., his son Sanjay Mandal (deceased) went saying that he was going to watch television in the house of Subodh Mandal. When in the next morning Sanjay did not return to his home, the informant went to search him. P.Ws. 1,2 & 3 told him that at about 10:00 p.m. Sanjay and the appellant were sitting on a Chabutara . The appellant asked P.Ws. 1,2 & 3 also to accompany him towards the pond to which they refused then the appellant convinced Sanjay and took him towards pond and accordingly the informant went towards pond along with others. They found blood stains on the earth at one place. There were also sign of dragging. They also found the appellant roaming around there. The informant and the villagers suspected that the appellant has killed Sanjay and dragged his dead body and therefore, he was roaming near the pond to observe the situation. When the informant along with villagers wanted to ask him, he fled away but the villagers caught him on chase. There were some injuries on the neck of the appellant, regarding which, he did not reply properly on which the villagers assaulted him due to which he sustained injuries. The informant suspected that the reasons of murder was that few days ago there was some dispute between the appellant and the 'Saru' of the informant in which there was 'Mar Pit' also. The appellant believed that Sanjay was helping his 'Mausa' due to which the appellant used to threaten Sanjay with dire consequences. Further, there was illicit relationship between Sanjay and the cousin of the appellant due to this reason also the appellant was angry with Sanjay. The family members of the cousin planned to commit murder.

(3.) Mr. Jai Prakash, learned sr. counsel appearing on behalf of appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. It is submitted that the chain of circumstances is not complete. He has also submitted that the incriminating circumstances taken into consideration in paragraph No.12 of the judgment were not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.