LALKA GANJHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 11/6/1998 (sentence passed on 18/6/1998) passed by Shri Sudarshan Upadhyay, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 113/1997, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the conviction u/s 302/34 of the IPC. No separate sentence has been passed for the conviction u/s 201/34 of the IPC.

(3.) The fardbeyan of Rudia Devi was recorded on 24/9/1996, in which, it has been stated that in the previous night the informant was sleeping in her house with her children and Saheb Ganjhu was sleeping in a separate cot. At about 10:00 A.M., Lalka Ganjhu, Daso Ganjhu, Madhu Ganjhu and Chandrika Ganjhu came to her house and Chandrika Ganjhu demanded liquor which was not given to him. It has been alleged that Chandrika Ganjhu become inquisitive as to the person sleeping on the cot and while seeing so all the accused persons tied the hands and legs of Saheb Ganjhu who was sleeping and started assaulting him with a Kachra. Chandrika Ganjhu told the other accused persons to take the informant also to the Jungle and the informant was also given a blow with a Kachra. The informant was being taken to the Jungle but she managed to escape and fled to the maize field and informed about the incident to Bengali Ganjhu, Chunni Ganjhu, and others. At this, Bengali Ganjhu along with Chunni Ganjhu and Munni Ganjhu went to the Jungle in search of his brother but he could not be traced out. In the morning, the informant along with the brothers of Saheb Ganjhu went towards the Jungle in search of Saheb Ganjhu who was found lying dead with his hands and legs tied. The cause of the incident is that the accused persons suspected that the informant was having an illicit relationship with Saheb Ganjhu. A Panchayati was also held but the informant had refused to accept the decision of the Panchayat.