INDRAJIT SINGH @ JITE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was charged with, tried and convicted for the offences under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur vide impugned judgment dated 31.5.2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 234 of 1999/49 of 1999. The jist of the charge is that the appellant along with the co -accused Laxmi Narayan @ Babu, had kidnapped the informant's minor son Baldev Singh @ Munna in the morning of 9.11.1998 and had later, committed his murder and concealed the dead body of the deceased within the bushes in the jungle.

(2.) THE case against the appellant and another co -accused was registered at the police station on the basis of the written report lodged on 10.11.1998 by the informant Mukhtar Singh (father of the deceased). The facts of the prosecution's case, briefly stated is that in the morning of 9.11.1998 at about 10.00 AM the informant's minor son Baldev Singh @ Munna aged eight years, was playing outside his house along with other children within the field known as Jemco maidan. At that time, the appellant Indrajit Singh @ Jite and other accused namely Laxmi Narayan @ Babu came to the field and forcibly carried away the boy on a bicycle. The informant's mother, who happened to be standing outside her house, saw her grandchild being taken away forcibly. She raised alarms, hearing which, the informant came out of his house. He too saw his minor son being taken away by the aforesaid accused persons on a bicycle. The informant tried to chase them, but could not catch them and saw that both the accused persons along with the minor boy fled away towards the D.V.C. yard. He went thereafter to the houses of both the accused persons, but did not find either of them or his son at their houses. The informant searched for his son through out the day and later again in the evening, he went to the house of the two accused persons whom he confronted at their houses, but both of them refused to divulge any information regarding the minor boy. The informant has alleged that there was long standing enmity between him and the accused Laxmi Narayan ever land dispute and that he was always being threatened by Laxmi Narayan.

(3.) THOUGH charge was framed against both the accused persons, but on account of the death of the co -accused Laxmi Narayan during the pendency of the trial, trial has proceeded against the present appellant only. The appellant had denied the charges pleading innocence and of his false implication in the case.