SURESH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Cr. Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction under Sections 302/201 I.P.C dated 26.8.1994 and order of sentence recorded on 31.8.1994 in Sessions Trial No. 61 of 1994 passed by the A.J.C., Khunti whereby and whereunder the sole appellant Suresh Mahto was sentenced to undergo R.I for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/ - with default stipulation and further R.I. for 5 years respectively with the direction that the sentence imposed upon the appellant would run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case as it stands narrated in the statement of the informant P.W. 1 Kunti Devi recorded on 13.10.93 at about 3 P.M. was that her son Raju aged about six years was persuaded and taken away by the appellant Suresh Mahto on the previous day on 12.10.93 to watch T.V. at his house. When her son Raju did not return back late in the night, she enquired from the appellant to which he expressed his ignorance as to where the boy proceeded though he was watching T.V. there. Her son could not be located in spite of extensive search in the night and on subsequent day when she came out again in search of her son, she was apprised by the daughter of the appellant namely Guriya when came across that her son was drowned in the well by her father (appellant) after strangulating him. Pursuant to such information, she rushed to the pointed well and on putting hooks, she witnessed that the dead body of her son was pulled with the help of hooks and on her cry, the witnesses arrived and in the meantime the police also came there. The dead body of her son was removed from the well. Disclosing the genesis, she narrated that there was altercation between her son and the son of the appellant and for such reason the appellant had given effect to the occurrence. The police registered the case under Sections 302/201 I.P .C. and after investigation submitted charge -sheet against the appellant Suresh Mahto and accordingly charge was framed under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) MR . A.A. Kumar, the Counsel further submitted that the statement of P.W. 1 Kunti Devi did not stand corroborated by P.W. 2 Bandhna Mahto and P.W. 5 Tetru Ganjhu in so far as the genesis of the occurrence and motive behind alleged killing were concerned and therefore, the statement of Kunti Devi was liable to be disbelieved. Admittedly, Kunti Devi was not the eye witness of the occurrence rather, she derived information from the daughter of the appellant Guriya but Guriya was not examined in support of the prosecution case, though, according to P.W.1 Kunti Devi, Guriya was the eye witness.