LAWS(JHAR)-2016-8-138

HEMLAL TUDU, SON OF NUNULAL TUDU, RESIDENT OF RAJA BHITA, P.S. TUNDI, DISTRICT DHANBAD (JHARKHAND) Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On August 31, 2016
Hemlal Tudu, Son Of Nunulal Tudu, Resident Of Raja Bhita, P.S. Tundi, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22nd March, 2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Dhanbad in connection with Sessions Trial No. 410 of 2001, arising out of Tundi P.S. Case No.06 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. No.248 of 2001, 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.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24th Jan., 2001, at about 12:00 noon, the informant's brother-Keshar Tudu had gone to Sasural of his daughter, situated at village Mirzapur, Karamtola, who did not return to his house in night. In the morning, on 25th Jan., 2001, one Charan Mahto-co-villager of the informant, while going to place of his employment, saw the dead body of Keshar Tudu, lying on road near a bridge of Ojhadih River, village Kadiya. Said Charan Mahto returned to his village and informed the informant. Thereafter, the informant along with co-villagers went to the place of the occurrence, where the dead body was lying and they found that there were injuries on head, hand and leg. On the basis of Fardbeyan of Kunwar Tudu, Tundi P.S. Case No.06 of 2001 dated 25th Jan., 2001 under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against unknown.

(3.) Charges under Sections 302 and 201 Penal Code against the appellant were framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses, including the doctor and the Investigating Officer, and exhibited six documents, whereas the defence has examined none and the case of the defence is totally denial of the allegation.