AUGUSTUS BECK Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant has been convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. It has been ordered that in case of nonpayment of fine, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

(2.) Against the said Judgment of conviction dated 21st April, 2006 and Order of sentence dated 22nd April, 2006 passed in Session Trial No. 171 of 2004 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, this appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant.

(3.) The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of P.W.7, the wife of the deceased, which was recorded on 03.03.2004. Matilda Bara, wife of the deceased Patras Tigga stated that on 02.03.2004, the son of the informant Ajit Tigga went to graze the bull. He returned and informed that the bull got lost. On the next day, the informant and her husband Patras Tigga went to Munda Chatam to get the bull. The bull was found in the house of Chaitu Oraon. After taking the bull, she returned, but, her husband stayed back. At about 10 O' clock her nephew Sunit Tigga came to her and informed that her husband has been murdered by Augustus Beck, son of Francis Beck by means of an axe and the deadbody is lying in the open field of Sukhram Oraon @ Sukra Munda. On receipt of said information, the informant, along with her elder brother-in-law, George Tigga, nephew Sunit Tigga rushed to Munda Chetam where, in the open courtyard of Sukra Munda, they found the deadbody of the deceased. There was mark of assault on the head and eye. The body was drenched in blood. She was informed that Augustus Beck was in the Village and was trying to flee. Then they chased and caught hold of this appellant and informed the matter to the Police. The reason of this occurrence, as per the informant, is that Augustus Beck suspected that the deceased was instrumental in putting fire on the macha of this appellant and this appellant had an impression that the deceased had beaten his bull. She suspected that because of these incidents, the appellant has committed murder of the deceased.