NISHIKANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 11/9/2003 passed by Sri Rama Shankar Shukla, learned 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 134 of 2003/ 08 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the Appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sec. 302/201 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Sec. 201 IPC.

(3.) The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Hopan Murmu recorded on 28/11/2002 in which it has been stated that the father-in-law of the informant, namely, Chunda Hembram, was working for the last 7-8 days in the house of Vimal Mirdha as a shepherd. On 27/11/2002, Kubraj Murmu, the Pradhan of the village of the informant, had disclosed that he has received information from the Pradhan of Harna village that Chunda Hembram has been murdered by Nishikant Singh, who has hidden the dead body in Ultandi Dangal with the help of the villagers. At this information, the informant along with some villagers had gone to Ultandi Dangal where the dead body of Chunda Hembram was located and there were signs of violence in his body. The informant along with the villagers had thereafter enquired from Asahana village wherein the villagers had disclosed that Nishikant Singh had assaulted Chunda Hembram with lathi and danda on the allegation that he had taken away two oxen about two months back. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Dumka (M) P.S. Case No. 106/02 was instituted under Sec. 302/201/34-IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 134/03. Charge was framed against the accused under Sec. 302, 201/34 IPC which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.