SAHEB JAMUDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the convicts have suffered the punishment of R.I for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- under section 302/34 IPC and R.I for 7 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- under section 201/34 IPC for committing murder of Pangila Jamuda @ Pitu Jamuda who is wife of the appellant no.1, namely, Saheb Jamuda @ Raghunath Jamuda and for causing disappearance of her dead body.

(2.) The informant, namely, Ramesh Purty is the father of Pangila Jamuda, the deceased. In his fardbeyan, he has stated that his daughter was married to Saheb Jamuda about 4 years back and from the wedlock one boy and one girl child were born. His son-in-law was sitting idle and he takes drinks (haria) and gambles the whole day. His daughter used to sell drinks (haria) for earning livelihood and that was the reason her father-in-law had separated from them. The informant has alleged that his daughter informed him that her husband used to abuse her and sometimes commits marpit. About one week prior to the incident his daughter came to him and complained about her husband whereupon he tried to resolve the matter with his son-in-law, who then tendered apology and promised that he would search work for himself and took his daughter to her matrimonial home. On receiving information from the villagers of Gurasai that his daughter has died of diarrhea, the informant alongwith his uncle, namely, Katey Ram Purty came to Gurasai (Tola-Peesai) and enquired about his daughter. His son-in-law and his father, both informed him that Pangila Jamuda has died due to diarrhea, however, he found tongue of his daughter protruded and black mark around her neck. He has also found that blood was oozing from her nose. On seeing the injuries on his daughter, he told his son-in-law that his daughter has not died of diarrhea rather they have killed her and therefore they should not cremate her dead body. The informant came back home and the next day he went to the police station, lodged an information and when he came to the house of the accused persons he found that his son-in-law and his father had buried the dead body of his daughter. With the help of police and magistrate, the dead body was recovered and a First Information Report vide, Chakradharpur P.S Case No.99 of 2008 was lodged under section 302/201/34 IPC against Saheb Jamuda and his father, namely, Jai Singh Jamuda.

(3.) During the trial, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses; the informant, namely, Ramesh Purty is P.W.1, his wife, namely, Nitima Purty is P.W.2 and his uncle, namely, Katey Ram Purty is P.W.3. The Circle Officer, namely, Surendra Kumar, who was deputed by a written order of the magistrate and in whose presence the dead body was recovered, has been examined as P.W.9.