LAWS(JHAR)-2013-2-75

MANGAL HEMBROM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On February 25, 2013
Mangal Hembrom Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have filed the criminal appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18/20 th August, 1990 in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1989/116 of 1989. The appellant no. 1 is original accused no. 1 and the appellant no. 2 is original accused no. 2 before the trial court.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 27.04.1988 at 8.30 hours the informant (Lukhi Hansda) gave her Fardbeyan to police in presence of witnesses that her daughter Ludaki Baski was married to Mangal Hembrom eight years ago and from their wedlock they had one son and one daughter. Again her daughter became pregnant and her son in law namely, Mangal Hembrom suspected that her daughter was entangle with another man and due to which there was an altercation between them. Her son in - law and his elder brother namely, Ishwar Hembrom used to threaten her daughter and her daughter made complaint to her several times. The complainant has further stated that she received a rumor that a body of a Santhal female of Jiyapani village had been thrown in Kusumnala Bahiyar and suspecting foul play she went to Sasural of her daughter where she did not find her daughter. She asked her son in law Mangal Hembrom about her daughter who informed that one day before his wife had gone away without saying anything to him. Thereafter, the complainant started searching her daughter and at Kusumnala she saw a dead body thrown in the Nala. She identified the dead body of her daughter Ludaki Baski. The complainant further stated that her son in law Mangal Hembrom and his elder brother Ishwar Hembrom have killed her daughter and thrown her dead body in the Nala and covered the dead body with stone to conceal the dead body. On the basis of the statement of the complainant Maheshpur Police Station Case under Section 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted.

(3.) THE appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court.