KITI RANA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 4-4-90 passed by Shri P. N. Yadav, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S. T. No. 368/88 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. The appellants have been further found guilty under Section 364, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. The sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case as made out in the FIR, Ext. 3, recorded on the statement of the informant Draupadi Devi is that deceased Parmeshwar Mahto was a labourer. He along with others was engaged on hire for cutting earth in village Haramwar. On 15-4-88 as usual he had gone on work in the early morning but did not return home. One Raj Kumar, son of Arjun Mahto PW-6, informed the informant that Parmeshwar had to attend a feast and would return by 2 o'clock. Further that on 14-4-88 at about 4-5 p.m. Parmeshwar Pd. Mahto (appellant No. 2) son of Dukhan Mahto of village Champadih had come to the residence of the informant who owed a sum of Rs. 300/- for about three years. When her husband asked to repay the same, he called him and took towards a shop. Her husband returned af- ter about an hour. Again at about 10 p.m. Parmeshwar came to her residence and called her husband, but she did not allow him to go out. Then Parmeshwar proposed that next day he would make a whistle sound near his earth cutting site to call him and asked the informant's husband to follow him thereafter. As usual her husband, due to hot in day time, went at work to Haramwar at about 4 a.m. but he did not come home till 12 o'clock. She was not satisfied with the reason stated by Raj Kumar son of Arjun and as such she went to Arjun Mahto and wanted to know whereabouts of her husband. Arjun told her that her husband has gone to enjoy a chicken party and will come back by 2 o'clock. She waited for whole night and on 16-4-88 she started searching her husband. In the meanwhile, Mahadeo Mahto PW-1 and Govind Mahto PW-2 of village Bihari told her that at about 11 a.m. on 15-4-88 Parmeshwar Prasad Mehta (appellant No. 2) and Kiti Rana (appellant No. 1) along with the deceased Parmeshwar Mahto were going somewhere on two bicycles with pigeon, oil and spices in a bag and in conversation, while giving tobacco, they told him that they are going to enjoy a party. The said PWs-1 and 2 thereafter returned to their homes. Again when the said PWs were going to jungle in the afternoon at about 3 p.m. to collect wood they saw only two persons, out of the three, returning on bicycle. When asked about the third person, they were told that one person is coming behind them. The informant suspected that her husband was killed by the said two persons (the appellants) and the dead body was concealed.

(3.) On the basis of the said fardbeyan of Draupadi Devi a formal FIR, Ext. 3, was drawn up on 17-4-88 and the case was registered initially under Section 364, IPC.