MAHADEB SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18th May, 2005 and the order of sentence dated 19th May, 2005 passed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila in S.T. No. 225 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the Court, having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of the deceased -Sashidhar Singh @ Peru and also for causing disappearance of the evidence of the murder, convicted him for the offence punishable under Ss. 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the offences were ordered to be run concurrently. Case of the prosecution, as has been projected in the fardbeyan (Ext. 1/1) of the informant -Shivcharan Singh (P.W. 9) is that Sashidhar Singh @ Petu was his younger brother, who had illicit relation with one Geeta Singh, widow of late Sanatan Singh. On 13.3.2003, at about 8.00 p.m., he left home by saying that he is going to the house of Geeta Singh but he did not return in the night. Therefore, in the morning, informant set out in search of his brother but did not find. On the next day, in course of search, when the informant came to near a well belonging to Kali Dutta, he could find blood spots over the wall of the well and, therefore, he suspected that his brother might have been killed by this appellant (son of Geeta Singh), as the appellant was never liking that illicit relation in between the deceased and his mother continue.

(2.) Thereupon, the informant came to Ghatsila Police Station on 16.3.2003 where he at about 6.00 a.m. gave his fardbeyan (Ext. 1/1), which was recorded by N.N. Pandey, Officer -in -Charge of Ghatsila Police Station. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 4) was drawn. Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by Nunu Misir (P.W. 11), who recorded the confessional statement of the appellant and then got the dead body out of the well. After holding autopsy on the dead body, he prepared an inquest report. Meanwhile, the I.O. also seized weapon used in the commission of murder under the seizure list (Ext. 6). Thereupon, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Niranjan Minz (P.W. 10), who, on holding autopsy, did find the following injuries on the person of the deceased: - -

(3.) Meanwhile, the I.O. also recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, when the charge -sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant.