BIPIN MIRDHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants Bipin Mirdha @ Kundan Kumar Yadav and Niranjan Kumar Yadav, respectively, challenging the judgment of conviction dtd. 27/1/2011 and order of sentence dtd. 29/1/2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 2010, whereby and where under both the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for offences under Ss. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000.00 for the offence punishable under Ss. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months; and they have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Bipin Mirdha @ Kundan Kumar Yadav in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.131 of 2011, submits that so far as this appellant is concerned, there are no materials to connect him with this incident. He submitted that whatever little material is available, the same is against the appellant Niranjan Kumar Yadav [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.272 of 2011]. The material against the said Niranjan Kumar Yadav is his confessional statement, though it cannot be termed to be as such, but so far as the appellant Bipin Mirdha @ Kundan Kumar Yadav is concerned, there is not even any statement. He submitted that name of appellant Bipin Mirdha @ Kundan Kumar Yadav transpired from the statement of appellant Niranjan Kumar Yadav, who allegedly confessed his guilt and on that basis the appellant Bipin Mirdha has been convicted.

(3.) So far as appellant Niranjan Kumar Yadav is concerned, learned counsel appearing for him submitted that his statement is hit by Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act. She submitted that the prosecution has tried to project that this appellant Niranjan Kumar Yadav has made an extra judicial confession before P.W.1, but there is no corroborative statement to that effect. P.W.1 is one of the agnates of Niranjan Kumar Yadav and he has vested interest to implicate the appellant Niranjan Kumar Yadav, as if Niranjan Kumar Yadav is convicted, entire property of his father (the deceased) will be enjoyed by them. She further submitted that it has come in evidence that the house, which was constructed by grandfather of P.W.1 and this appellant Niranjan Kumar Yadav, was allotted in the share of the deceased father of this appellant and that is the reason, P.W.1 grabbing the opportunity has falsely implicated this appellant in this case.