KHARA ALIAS KHADO MARANDI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.11.1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 165 of 1988 whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) Brief facts of the case registered on the basis of the first information report (FIR) is that Bijli Soren (deceased) the daughter of the informant Konka Soren PW8 was married to the appellant about three years prior to the alleged date of the occurrence. Quarrels between the husband and wife arose when the husband developed extra marital relation with another lady. In due course, the wife separated from her husband and began living at her parents' house. Later, the appellant came to the house of the informant along with the village Pradhan and persuaded the informant (the father of the deceased), to send his daughter on the assurance that there would be no further quarrels between the husband and the wife since the other lady has left the house of the appellant. On being persuaded, the informant sent off his daughter, Bijli Soren along with the accused/appellant. While leaving the house, the appellant stated that he along with his wife ( the deceased) will go to village Khundi for witnessing a drama and thereafter, they would proceed to his native village. A few days later, the informant's wife (PW9) went to meet her daughter (deceased). She was however, surprised to learn from the mother-in-law of her daughter that neither her daughter nor her son-in-law had returned to the village. The informant's wife thereafter returned to her house next day. On the same day in the afternoon at 2.30 p.m. one Lukhi Hembrom (PW14) came and informed that a dead body was lying in the Shambhudih Jungle emitting foul smell. The informant's son (PW6) and co-villager accompanied PW14 to the forest where they found a dead body. The informant and his family members identified the dead body as that of his daughter Bijli Soren. The Police was thereafter informed on the same day. After registering the FIR against the appellant, the investigating officer visited the place where the dead body of the deceased was found. He prepared inquest report of the dead body and seized the articles lying near the dead body which were identified by the witnesses as being the belongings of the deceased. Post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted. On the basis of the materials collected in course of investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the appellant recommending trial of the appellant for the offence under Section 302/201 IPC.

(3.) The appellant pleaded not guilty and took the plea that the deceased had an illicit relation with a forest guard, for which she used to visit the forest. He had also denied to have taken the deceased along with him from her father's house.