SUNDRA PAHARIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment of conviction dated 5.3.1997 and order of sentence dated 12.3.1997 passed by Shri Swaroop Lal, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 81/1996/12/1996 whereby the appellant has been found guilty of committing murder of Madhu Singh Paharia and has been convicted u/ss. 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment u/s 302 I.P.C. and seven years rigorous imprisonment u/s 201 I.P.C. both the sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case was initiated on the basis of the fardbeyan of the deceased's wife Gangi Paharin. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.12.1995, Madhu Singh Paharia (deceased) had gone to hat (market) alongwith the appellant. The appellant, Sundra Paharia returned home in the evening but Madhu Singh Paharia did not reach home. When the informant inquired about her husband, the appellant showed his ignorance about his whereabout. The informant, thereafter, searched her husband here and there, but she did not find him. After two days, on 13.12.1995 the dead body of Madhu Singh Paharia was found lying in Daharlangi Bahiyar. The informant suspected that her husband must have been killed by the appellant due to enmity and land dispute.

(3.) THE prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the appellant altogether examined eight witnesses. Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha, P.W. 1, who conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased opined that the death was caused by the injuries inflicted by hard and blunt substance. P.W. 2, Deva Paharia stated that he came to know about the death of the deceased, Madhu Singh Paharia from the informant. There was enmity between the appellant and the deceased. He, however, did not remember the date on which he had seen the dead body. P.W. 3, Hariya Paharia also came to know about the occurrence from the informant and he is hearsay witness. P.W. 4, Jabra Paharia stated that he went to see the dead body when he got the information from the informant. He clearly stated in para 4 of his deposition that he had no personal knowledge about the incident. P.W. 5, Sundra Paharia in para 1 stated that the appellant was the Pradhan of the village and that P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are related to the deceased. In para 5, he stated that there was enmity between the appellant and the deceased. P.W. 6, the informant, in her deposition contradicted the statement of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. In para 1 she also developed story which was not in the fardbeyan. P.W. 7, Dekha Paharia was declared hostile. P.W. 8, Nasirudrn Khan is a formal witness. He proved the signature of the investigating officer, F. Milwar, who is said to be dead and formally proved the case diary which was in his handwriting as Ext. -3. The prosecution has also proved the post mortem report, marked as Ext. -1 and fardbeyan (Ext. -2).