MAHESH MUNDA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence both dated 15th September, 1999, passed by the learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 647 of 1996, whereby, the sole appellant -accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) IF the prosecution case is unfolded, the facts of the case are as under :

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, who has submitted that it is the present appellant - accused, who has forcibly taken away the baby aged about one and half month from the lap of PW 4. PW 4 (Sita Devi) is the mother of the deceased baby. Thereafter, the appellant -accused had taken away the baby at his house and that too at the back side of his house. When PW 4 immediately rushed there and demanded for the baby, the appellant -accused refused to give her, the baby. Blood was coming out from the nose of the baby and, therefore, PW 4 shouted and called PW 2, who is mother of PW 4, and both of them have seen the blood coming out from the nose of the baby. The appellant -accused was not giving the baby to PW 4 or PW 2 and, therefore, they have to snatch away the baby and they found that the baby aged about one and half month was dead. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that looking to the deposition, given by PW 1, who is Dr. Ram Swarup Shah and who has carried out the post -mortem examination on 25th June, 1996 at about 14 hours, it appears that the doctor has stated that the death has taken place within 6 to 24 hours and the death may be caused by simply covering her nose with clothes. There were haemorrhage spots on both the lungs. This evidence of PW 1 gives enough corroboration to the depositions, given by PW 4 and PW 2 and these depositions of the prosecution witnesses have been properly appreciated by the trial Court and the appellant -accused has been rightly, therefore, punished for the offence of committing murder of the deceased and, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, awarded by the trial Court to the appellant - accused, in this Criminal Appeal.