LAWS(JHAR)-2018-1-151

ANDU SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On January 31, 2018
Andu Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2004 and Order of sentence dated 23.07.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Latehar in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The prosecution case initiated on the basis of first information report of Bans Raj Singh is that on 01.07.2000 at about 17:00 hours the informant was chatting with his wife sitting with him in his "DHABA". In the meantime the accused Andu Singh who is the nephew of the informant came there by keeping both his hands at the back of his body and struck two successive blow of axe (TANGI) on the head of his wife, separating her head from trunk causing her instantaneous death. When the informant raised alarm then the accused also made abortive bid to kill the informant who managed make good his escape. This informant has further stated that the accused was saying her deceased wife to be a witch (DAAIN) because brother of the accused-Pehat Singh, died due to the snake-bite.

(2.) On the basis of the first information report, Manika P.S. Case No. 023 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 185 of 2000 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and police took up investigation. After completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet in the case.

(3.) Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge was framed against the sole accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in this case and one witness was examined on behalf of the defence.