SK. KHURSHID Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant Sk. Khurshid has challenged the impugned judgment dated 04/02/1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 1/1996, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 364 IPC and has been sentenced to under go for life.

(2.) THE informant, Sk. Makku gave a Fard Beyan to the Officer -in -Charge of Meharama police station alleging therein that he got his daughter Bibi Fekiya Khatoon married with the appellant Sk. Khurshid, whose first wife was alive. It is alleged that the informant went to his daughter's in -laws place in order to bring her because his daughter was pregnant and according to the custom prevalent the daughter should deliver first child at her parent's house. When the informant reached her daughter's in -laws place in Village Haripur he did not find her there. On being asked, his son -in -law (appellant) disclosed that his daughter was traceless. On further enquiry his son -in -law told that his daughter was in the hospital at Nathnagar, Bhagalpur. The informant went there but he could not find her there. On further interrogation, the appellant told him that she was in the hospital at Sahebganj. The informant went there also but there also he could not find her. It is further alleged that the informant came to know that two months ago the appellant had taken his wife Fekiya Khatoon for earning livelihood at Panipat. They boarded the train at Pirpanti Railway Station and when the train reached at Bhagalpur, the appellant got down from the train deserting his wife in the train itself. It is stated that his wife waited for the return of her husband but when he did not come back till the train reached Kiul Station then she also got down from the train at Kiul and came back to her sasural and narrated the story to the villagers. Then a Panchayati was held and in that Panchayati Sk. Khurshid, i.e. the appellant promised not to commit such mistake in future and also promised to keep her properly. In this view of the matter, the informant suspected that his son -in -law, i.e. the appellant must have kidnapped his wife for murder and murdered her.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the daughter of the informant has not been traced out and she has not been recovered either dead or alive.