HARI RAM PATAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of his conviction and sentence whereby for the offence under Sections 364, 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Sec. 302, rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Sec. 364 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.02.1994 and 26.02.1994 respectively passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T, Case No. 132/25 of 1991 -91. Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that the informant Sagar Patar (P.W. -4) lodged sF.I.R. on 11.06.1990 alleging therein that his father -in -law Mangla Patar (P.W. - 3), resident of village - Banki had no issue except the informant's wife and therefore, the informant's son Sarveshwar Patar (deceased) used to look after the lands and house of his maternal grand father (NANA) i.e. Mangla Patar (P.W. -3). On 29.05.1990, at about 2:30 P.M., Sarveshwar Patar (deceased) had left the house for the house of his NANA namely Mangla Patar (P.W. -3) situated at village - Bank and when he did not return till 10.06.1990 from there, the informant went to the Mangla Patar's place in his village to enquiry about his son and then Mangla Patar informed him that he had started with Sarveshwar Patar on 04.06.1990 for Mosabani and on the way, when both of them were sitting near Taldenga on the pitch road waiting for passenger Bus, Hari Ram Patar (appellant) of village Charaigora came and informed them that no Bus would be available on that day and therefore, he himself was going to Ghatshila on bicycle and thereafter he took Sarveshwar Patar (deceased) with him on bicycle and thereafter, Mangla Patar (P.W. -3) returned to his village. Then the informant started searching for his son but he could not be traced out. Ultimately, he went to village Charaigora to the place of this appellant and on being asked, this appellant stated that he had no knowledge about Sarveshawr Patar. In the F.I.R., the informant alleged that Mangla Patar had four 'PHUPHERA Nephews (sons of the wife's brother) and the appellant was the youngest of them and he wanted share in the properties of Mangla Patar, but instead of giving share in the property, Mangla Patar sold his landed property and he gave Rs. 3,000.00 to Sarveshwar Patar and therefore, the informant suspected that the appellant had kidnapped his son and thereafter, killed him.

(3.) IN order to establish the charges, altogether 11 witnesses were examined during trial on behalf of the prosecution.