KUNJO LAHAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 261 of 1983 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Commissioner convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302/201, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC and five years under Section 201, IPC but both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 7/3/1982 the deceased. (choukidar Gorakh Nath Munda) had gone to Puma Nagar market he did not return and thereafter the informant along with his mother went to the house of this appellant, Kunjo Lohar who is also choukidar to inquire about his father. Gorakh Nath Munda to which the appellant told them to make search of his father and thereafter they returned to the house and started searching. It is further alleged that again the informant went to the house of appellant to inquire about his father to which the appellant told him to search his father in the house of his family members and he will search in the village. It is further alleged that the accused/appellant had given him a tobacco dibiya belonging to his father. It is also alleged that the appellant told them that one dead body is lying near the bandh which could not be identified and thereafter the informant and his family members rushed to the spot near the bandh and found the dead body of his father. Accordingly the first information report was lodged against unknown. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant who appeared before the trial Court and accordingly charge was framed under Section 302/201, IPC which was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty. The witnesses were examined before the trial Court and after hearing both sides, the learned Judicial Commissioner passed in the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant in the manner as stated above.

(3.) Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment, submitted that the learned trial Court committed error in convicting the appellant without appreciating the evidence on record, as there is no iota of evidence to connect this appellant for the alleged offence. It is further argued that there is no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the Investigating Officer has also not been examined in this case for which the defence case has been prejudiced as well as the chemical examination report of the blood stained blanket and dhoti has not been received to establish that the blood of blanket and dhoti was actually human blood. It is further argued that the tobacco dibiya said to have been handed over by this appellant has also not been produced before the Court to substantiate the story in the manner as alleged which also leads the whole prosecution case doubtful.