PUITU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha and learned counsel for the State Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 27.03.3012 and order of sentence dated 28.03.2012 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 465 of 2007, whereby the sole appellant Puitu Mahto @ Punnu Mahto has been held guilty and convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-.

(3.) Prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Mangal Mahto, informant (PW-1) recorded by A.S.I. Kedar Rai of Bundu Police Station on 11.12.2006 at 12.45 Hrs. at village Tauo. The informant has alleged that in the morning at about 6.00 A.M, his son-in-law Puitu Mahto @ Punnu Mahto (accused) along with his daughter Sarita Devi, who were cultivating the land of Radha Mahato on Bataidari, went to irrigate the same. When both of them did not return till 9.30 A.M, the informant went in search of them by bicycle. The informant saw the bicycle of his son-in-law standing there and his coat, gamchha and slipper was lying near the well and shawl and muffler of his daughter was kept at the passage of the paddy field, but both of them were not present there. On this, the informant got some suspicion. The informant thought that his daughter has been killed by his son-in-law and thrown her body in the well. Thereafter, the informant asked Radha Mahato to bring Jhaggar (instrument to take out something from the well) and searched the body of his daughter. Thereafter, the informant found his daughter lying in the paddy field of Kamal Mahato situated in south western corner having injury on her head, from which blood was oozing out and the blood stained spade was also found near the place of occurrence. Informant has further stated that the reason behind the occurrence was that his son-in-law belongs to a very poor family and as such, his daughter was not willing to stay at her Sasural, though his son-in-law wanted to take his daughter to her Sasural. On account of this fact, my son-inlaw and daughter were always quarrelling.