PURI MAHTO @ PURI YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2001 and order of sentence dated 22.12.2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Deoghar in S.T. No. 42 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC.

(2.) THE case of prosecution in brief as per the fardbeyan of Duban Mahto (P.W. 11) is that his daughter Shosho Devi married to the appellant 8 -9 years ago from the date of occurrence. It is further stated that informant's daughter had come to her parental house in the month of Bhado and at that time she was pregnant and very weak. It is further stated that the appellant frequently used to come to his house for taking his wife, but informant's wife Aiwa Devi (deceased) refused to send her daughter because she was pregnant and weak. It is further alleged that because of that the appellant and his family members became angry. On 13.11.1996 at about 12 p.m., the appellant came to his house and told the deceased that as he is going to Bombay for earning and will return after four months, thus, she should accompany him for bringing the box and cloths of her daughter from his house. It is alleged that on being asked by the appellant, deceased accompanied him and went to his village for bringing the said box and cloths at about 4 p.m. It is then stated that when she did not return till the evening, the informant, his son Madan Yadav, nephew Basudeo Yadav, co -villager Bithal Yadav and others started searching her. It is further alleged that when they went to the house of appellant situated in Village - Kusumdih at about 7 -8 p.m. to enquire about her, the appellant, his father and brothers told the informant that his wife had not come. They showed their ignorance regarding her whereabouts. It is further stated that thereafter informant alongwith others returned and started searching the deceased in wells and ponds of the village and in course of their search, they found her dead body in the well of Anupa Mahto of Village -Bishunpur. Thereafter, they informed the police. It is stated that on arrival of police, the dead body was taken out from the well. They found " a cut injury on the middle portion of the head of deceased. Thereafter, the statement of informant was recorded.

(3.) AFTER commitment, the charges were framed against the appellant and other accused persons under Sections 302, 120B and 201 of the IPC. The charges were explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined altogether 13 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of appellant and other accused persons were recorded by the learned court below under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, in which their defence was of total denial. Learned court below considered the evidences available on record and acquitted co -accused Benga Mahto, Tilak Mahto and Babulal Mahto as no sufficient evidence was found against them. However, learned court below found sufficient evidence against the appellant and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. The appellant has been thus, convicted and sentenced as stated above. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging his conviction.