PRITHIBI BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appellants, namely, Prithibi Bhagat and Mundru Baitha were put on trial along with accused Chhantu Munda (since died) to face charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Arun Singh in furtherance of their common intention and also for causing disappearance of evidence of the offence of the murder with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment. The trial court on finding the appellants guilty on both counts convicted them under Section 302/34 and also under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for an offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence was passed under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that Arun Singh, son of Hareshwar Singh, the informant (P.W.15) was running a shop for selling shoes at Ghaghra. Everyday he used to go to Ghaghra on Motor Cycle and in the evening he used to come back to his village invariably by 7 -8 P.M. But on 13.9.1998 when his son did not return till 10 O'clock in the night the informant became perturbed. However, at 10.15 P.M. one Bhagwan Oraon (not examined) came to his house along with 3 -4 persons and informed him that they saw Motor Cycle belonging to Arun Singh lying near 'Chhatwar Culvert' where one Bhujali is also lying but they did not see Arun Singh nearby it. On getting this information the informant Hareshwar Singh, father of Arun Singh along with the villagers set out in search of his son and saw the dead body of his son lying in a field situated near that culvert. Meanwhile, Satish Kumar Sinha (P.W.16) the then Sub -Inspector of Police posted at Ghaghra Police Station on getting information that someone has been murdered near Chhatwar Culvert came there and found the dead body of Arun Singh. The father of the deceased and others were also present over there. Hareshwar Singh (P.W.15) father of the deceased gave Fardbeyan (Ext 4) raising suspicion against Chhantu Munda as well as appellant as Chhantu Munda was inimical to the deceased and the said Chhantu Munda and his associates, the appellants, some days before the occurrence had extended threat to the deceased of dire consequence. It was also disclosed by the informant that the appellant as well as Chhantu Munda were seen by passers -by including Ramesh Gope (P.W.4) the salesman of the shop of the deceased, near Culvert having weapons with them. On the basis of said Fardbeyan a case was registered and a formal First Information Report (Ext.7) was drawn and the matter was taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer, Satish Kumar Sinha, who held inquest on the dead body and prepared an Inquest Report (Ext.6). Subsequently, the dead body was sent to Sadar Hospital, Godda for post mortem examination where Dr. Hemant Kumar (P.W.9) did autopsy on the dead body and found the following ante mortem injuries.

(3.) AFTER completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellants and cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course when the case was committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.