RUDO YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction dtd. 24/9/2018 and Order of Sentence dtd. 27/9/2018 passed by the District and Additional Sessions Judge IV, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.162 of 2013, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that on the basis of evidence, which has been recorded, the appellant could not have been convicted. P.W.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 are not eye witnesses to the occurrence. Admittedly, they are hear-say witnesses and on the basis of their statement, appellant could not have been convicted. Only on the basis of evidence of P.W.1, who is a boy aged 12 year, this appellant has been convicted. It is his contention that conviction cannot be based on the testimony of a sole eye witness, more so when the eye witness is an interested witness being son of the deceased. He further stated that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive and the case is entirely based on suspicion. In absence of motive, only on the basis of suspicion, this appellant could not have been convicted. He submits that even the P.W.1 is also not an eye witness, which would be evident from his statement, rather he is the person, who had seen the dead body first. The circumstances that the appellant used to drink and used to demand money from the deceased cannot be a ground to come to the conclusion that he has committed murder of the deceased. So far as another motive that the accused wanted to sell the land, which was objected by the deceased, resulted in murder of the deceased has not been proved. On these grounds, he prays that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be convicted.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that circumstances are grave and clinching against this appellant. The deceased died in the house of this appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, where no one was present. The circumstances suggest that it is only the appellant, who could have murdered the deceased and no one else. He argues that the appellant with his younger son came to the elder son, i.e., P.W.1 and requested him to keep the younger son with him, when the P.W.1 asked about his mother, evasive reply was given by this appellant, then immediately he rushed to his house, when he saw his mother lying dead. This clearly suggests that the appellant had knowledge about the incident. Further, the murder weapon was found in the courtyard and the medical evidence also suggests that the weapon, which was used, was axe as all the injuries are sharp cut injuries. From the evidence and the materials on record, it is also clear that there was no other person, who could have committed the occurrence. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant, which needs no interference by this Court.