CHHOTA SIDHO MURMU Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.1.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, in connection with Sessions Case No. 179 of 2004, corresponding to Borio P.S. Case No. 96 of 2004, dated 1.7.2004, G.R. Case No. 263 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The prosecution case, as it appears from the Fardbeyan of Bhairo Soren recorded on 1.7.2004 at about 10.30 hours at Village -Puwal, within P.S. -Borio, District -Sahibganj, in brief, is that on 30.6.2004 the deceased and her husband were consuming liquor at the instance of appellant. At about 10.30 p.m. the appellant along with husband of the deceased went to the house of Salhayee Soren and again they started drinking. In the meantime, the appellant on the pretext of bringing snacks went out from the house of Salhayee Soren and thereafter he was seen by P.W. 7 Ranjit Hembrom and P.W. 8 Sital Marandi fleeing away from the house of the deceased and he was having Dawli (a sharp cutting weapon) in his hand. The aforesaid witnesses entered into the house of the deceased and found her throat slit. The appellant was caught by the villagers and he was taken to the house of Pradhan, where he confessed his guilt. The aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the informant, who happens to be the son of the deceased, and he had given his Fardbeyan before the police on 1.7.2004. On the basis of Fardbeyan of Bhairo Soren, a case being Borio P.S. Case No. 96 of 2004 dated 1.7.2004, under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant Chhota Sidho Murmu was registered.

(2.) The police, after due investigation, submitted charge -sheet and accordingly cognizance was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was registered as S.T. No. 179 of 2004.

(3.) Charge under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge, examined altogether 12 witnesses and proved seizure list, inquest report and the weapon which have been marked exhibits. The learned Sessions Judge at the conclusion of trial placing reliance on the evidences and documents available on record held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him, as indicated above.