ANIL KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.2006, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VII, Hazaribagh, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 403 of 2002, corresponding to Ramgarh, P.S. Case No. 201 of 2001, G.R. Case No. 1653 of 2001, whereby the appellant Anil Kumar and co-accused Pancham Mahto have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 364 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201/34 of Indian Penal Code and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, as it appears from the written report lodged by Chuneshwar Mahto is that from 16.07.2001 Kanchan Kumar, aged about ten years, son of the informant, was found missing from his school gate. In course of search, on 17.07.2001 a betel shopkeeper, who happens to be the son of Tara Mahto, disclosed that he had seen the appellant-Anil Kumar taking Kanchan kumar (deceased) on his bicycle. On 18.07.2001 the written report was lodged and a case under Section 364 of the I.P.C. against Anil Kumar being Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 201 of 2001 dated 18.07.2001 was registered. During investigation dead body of Kanchan Kumar was recovered as such Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code have been added vide order dated 20.07.2001. After due investigation charge-sheet was submitted against accused-appellant Anil Kumar and Pancham Mahto. Accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was registered as S.T. No. 403 of 2002.

(3.) Initially charge was framed against Anil Kumar and Pancham Mahto under Section 364 of the I.P.C. on 03.2.2003. Thereafter, charges under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal code were also framed on 31.03.2003. Since the appellant did not admit the charge and claimed to be tried, he along with co-accused Pancham Mahto was put on trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined altogether 20 witnesses. Learned Additional Sessions Judge at the conclusion of trial, placing reliance on evidence and documents available on record held the appellant and co-accused Pancham Mahto guilty under Sections 364, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and scented them, as indicated above.