SAYOTA ALIAS SURSEN BHENGRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27. 8. 1999, passed by Shri Tarkeshwar prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in sessions Trial No. 89 of 1996, whereby and where under he convicted the appellant under Section 302/34 and also under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to I. P. C.) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and 4 years under Section 201, I. P. C.

(2.) THE story of prosecution, in short, as per Fardbeyan of PW1 Jaiwanti Devi, is that on 3. 12. 1995, the husband of the informant namely Sugarh Randulna had gone to kulburu market along with the appellant and one Tipra @ Trutant Topno. It is further alleged that Tipra and this appellant returned in the village in the evening but the husband of the informant did not return. It is further stated that when the informant asked the appellant and his companion, they did not give any satisfactory answer and because of that informant suspected that they have committed some foul. It is further alleged that thereafter the informant along with other villagers searched her husband and later on 5. 12. 1995, the dead body of her husband was found in the north of kuluburu market. It is also stated that the place where dead body was found, some trail mark was found and from that it appears that the occurrence might have taken place at some other place and later on the dead body was brought to the place from where it was recovered. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan, the present case was instituted against the appellant and Tipra.

(3.) IT appears that after completing the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and co-accused Tipra under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and also under section 201 of the I. P. C. for concealing of evidence. It further appears that learned chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance has committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence under Section 302, i. P. C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. It appears that the Court below vide order dated 27. 4. 1996 framed charge against both the accused persons under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and also under Section 201, I. P. C. The said charges were explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, it appears that co-accused Tipra @ Turtant Topno absconded from the court below and accordingly his case was split up vide order dated 4. 8. 1999 under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It then appears that in the Court below, altogether 11 witnesses have been examined, out of whom, PW1 to 4, 6 and 8 are witnesses of facts. PW 5 and 7 are formal witnesses, who had proved Ext. 2, 2/2 and 2/3 respectively. PW9 has been tendered for cross-examination. PW10 is the doctor, who has conducted autopsy. PW11 is the formal witness, who has proved Exs 4 and 5. It appears that the court below after considering the evidence available on record convicted the appellant by the impugned judgment, as stated above. Against that, the present appeal has been filed.