DHARMU MAHTO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred for setting aside the order of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.07.2008 and 17.7.2008, respectively, passed by the Learned XXth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 124 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2695 of 2004 arising out of Kanke, P.S. Case No. 60 of 2004, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as narrated in the fardbeyan of Jaglal Mahto, son of Panne Nath Mahto, made on 08.09.2004 at 2 p.m. is that his sister Bajo Devi was married to one Dharmu Mahto about 16 years ago. His daughter had three children, one daughter aged about 12 years and two sons aged about 8 years and 5 years. After marriage, his sister's husband used to regularly beat her. He used to keep one of his nephews, Vivek Kumar and used to school him. In the morning of 08.09.2004, at around 6 a.m., Manoj Mahto, son of Late Laxmi Nath Mahto, who is the nephew of the accused brother -in -law, and one Lachhu Mahto, s/o. Late Alam Mahto who is also the nephew of Dharmu Mahto had come to his house on a motorcycle. They asked them as to how things were, to which they answered that aunty has died and returned taking his nephew with them on the motorcycle. After this, he along with his uncle Puni Nath Mahto son of Baldeo Mahto went on motorcycle to Kadma. On reaching Kadma, they came to know that the husband of his sister, Dharmu Mahto had throttled and hanged his sister and killed her. It is his full belief that Dharmu Mahto killed his sister either by throttling or by hanging her.

(3.) On the basis of the fardbeyan, the police registered Ranchi Sadar, Kanke P.S. Case No. 60 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 2695 of 2004. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed as Sessions Trial No. 124 of 2005. Charge under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.