SAPAN HADI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 507 of 2014, Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 252 of 2013 and Ms. Shruti Shrestha, learned Amicus Curiae in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 595 of 2013 and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. for the State in all the cases.

(2.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 15/3/2013 passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S. T. No. 22 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the charge under Sec. 302/34 of I.P.C. and all of them have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 302/34 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine they have been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.

(3.) It has been alleged that the informant was sleeping along with her husband and children when at about 1-1:30 A.M., somebody knocked at the door. When her husband enquired as to their identity, the accused persons broke the door and forcibly entered into the room. The informant could identify the accused who are the present appellants. All the accused persons had thrashed her husband to the ground and started assaulting him, while Sapan Hadi (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 507 of 2014) had stabbed him on his chest with a knife. When he started raising alarm, all the accused persons fled away. After some time, her husband succumbed to his injuries. The reason for the occurrence is that about one and half months back, appellant - Santosh Hadi had enticed away the daughter of the informant namely, Khusboo Kumari and kept her in the house of Manoj Hadi (appellant no. 2 in Cr. Appeal DB No. 595 of 2013). It has been alleged that the husband of the informant was in jail with respect to a criminal case and when he was released, he had asked the informant to somehow bring her daughter back. She had gone to the house of Manoj Hadi and had requested to send back her daughter. Her daughter had returned back and her husband had told not to send her daughter again. He had also stated that he does not intend to solemnize the marriage of his daughter Khusboo Kumari with Sapan Hadi and on coming to know about such facts, Sapan Hadi is alleged to have become infuriated and wanted to forcibly take back the daughter of the informant. It has been alleged that earlier also he had extended threats which finally culminated in the murder of the husband of the informant. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Katras (Tetulmari) P. S. Case No. 180 of 2009 was instituted. On completion of investigation, charge- sheet was submitted against Sapan Hadi, Santosh Hadi and Manoj Hadi pursuant to which cognizance was taken for the offences under Ss. 302/34 of I.P.C. A supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against Gujra Dome and cognizance was taken on 10/3/2010 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for the offence under Sec. 302/34 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge was framed against Santosh Hadi, Manoj Hadi and Gujra Dome for the offence under Sec. 302/34 I.P.C. and against Sapan Hadi for the offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. which was explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.