KALESHWAR AHIR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th July, 1996 and 6th July, 1996 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that one Mangri Devi, wife of the deceased gave fardbeyan before the police alleging therein that on 26.8.1994 in the evening at about 4.00 p.m. the appellant Kaleshwar Ahir came to her house and asked her husband Sal Klshun Nagesia (deceased) to come to his house for doing treatment (Jharphuk) because he was not well. Her husband went to the house of the appellant at 7.00 p.m. in the evening and at about 8.00 p.m. on the same day, Gangadhar Pradhan(P.W. 4) came to her house and told her that appellant Kaleshwar Ahir committed murder of her husband by assaulting with tangi and thereafter she went to the house of the accused with her brother -in -law Chotku Nagesia and Lorge Nagesia and they saw the dead body of her husband lying there, which was lying on the southern side baramdah of the house of the accused and blood was oozing out from the body, a tangi was also lying near by. On enquiry, the sarpanch of the village Dumneshwar Singh, Gangadhar Pradhan and other villagers told her that Kaleshwar Ahir, the appellant assaulted her husband with tangi. On the basis of fardbeyan, the First Information Report was lodged against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge -sheet against this appellant. Witnesses were examined in the trial Court after framing charges against the appellant and after hearing both the sides, the Court below passed the judgment convicting the appellant and sentenced him as in the manner as stated above.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned APP contended before us that the appellant made confession before the police as well as the PWs confessing his guilt and admitted that fact that he assaulted the deceased with tangi and this fact has also been corroborated by the witnesses as well as by the doctor who held post -mortem on the dead body of the deceased.