RAHUL DEO PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Flowering marital bliss of a bride was nipped in the bud on the date of her marriage on account of a dastardly act of murder committed by the assailant. Whether the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime or not or whether the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant u/S. 302, IPC is the question which we seek to answer in the present appeal.

(2.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 19-7-2012 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in connection with S.T. No. 440 of 2005 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence u/S. 302, IPC and was sentenced to R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 10, 000/- (ten thousand).

(3.) The allegation made in the FIR reveals that on 29-4-2005, the marriage ceremony of the daughter of the informant was to be solemnized with Awadhesh Kumar Pandey. During the course of marriage ceremony when some rituals were going on in the morning on 30-4-2005 at 3 a.m., the informant heard the sound of a gunshot. The informant rushed inside the house along with his family members and villagers and found that the appellant was fleeing away from inside the room of Bina Kumari (deceased). He was chased and apprehended and on search a loaded country made pistol was recovered from the left side of his waist. When the informant and his family members entered into the room of Bina Kumari she was found lying dead and there was gunshot injury on her head. Plenty of blood and brain matters were spread on the floor and other places. The informant alleges that the appellant often visited his house and was a man of suspicious character. The allegation noted above led to institution of Chouparan P.S. Case No. 68 of 2005 u/S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet under the said sections and on 22-9-2005 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter charge was framed u/Ss. 302, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and trial proceeded.