BHOLA LOHRA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal on hand has been preferred by accused -appellant Bhola Lohra against the judgment of conviction dated 16.10.2001 and order of sentence dated 17.10.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in S.T. No. 212 of 1998 arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No. 35 of 1998 registered under Sections 302 and 201 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder accused -appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P.C. with the rider that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of prosecution sans unnecessary details, as one finds from the fardbeyan (initial statement) of Latangu @ Banda Lohra, the father of the deceased -Somra Lohra recorded on 20.04.1998 at 9:30 A.M. near the dead body of Somra Lohra at Chamara Bandh under Simdega police station, is that informant, having come to know from none else but his younger son Rantu Lohra at 7:30 P.M. on 19.04.1998 that on pretext to show eggs of bird namely Panduki, deceased was conveyed by accused Bhola Lohra, (hereinafter to be referred to as accused) started searching his son and during course of search of his missing son, today i.e.; 20 -04 -98, in the morning, he spotted the marks of blood stains on Godhi Dandh hillock, to which he followed and ultimately found the dead body of the deceased into the lodged water near his land. He noticed two incised injuries on the neck of the deceased apart from the swelling on face, forehead and neck. It is alleged that there was animosity of informant with the father of the Bhola Lohra namely Mangra Lohra because in one litigation, informant had deposed his evidence against him in the Court. It is also alleged that there were blood spots on cloths of accused -appellant, which Mangra Lohra had got washed out.

(3.) THE case of accused person, as one finds from the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. is of denial simplicitor. During cross -examination, it has been suggested by the defence counsel to witnesses that the accused has been falsely implicated which was denied by them. Further, accused person has not chosen to adduce any evidence in his defence.