SURENDRA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 21.07.1995 under section 302 IPC and the order of sentence of R.I for life, dated 24.07.1995.

(2.) The informant namely, Gobardhan Gope has given his fardbeyan to the Officer-in-Charge, Dahuguttu police station which was recorded on 28.02.1986 at about 11 a.m. The informant has stated that the accused- Surendra Mahto and the deceased namely, Satyadeo Mahto sometimes used to stay together in a room provided by him on rent. They were hawkers who used to sell spices and in course of their business sometimes they stayed in his house. On 27.02.1986 the accused and the deceased both were staying in a room in the informant's house. They prepared their meal and after taking dinner slept in the same room. However, on the next morning at about 9/10 a.m the appellant went outside with a bundle of spices however the deceased namely, Satyadeo Mahto did not come out of the room. The informant has asserted that he thought that the deceased was still sleeping in the room however after some time when he went inside the room he found one person sleeping there with the entire body covered with a bed-sheet. When he lifted the cover he found the deceased bleeding from his nose, mouth and his neck. He raised alarm on which the neighbours arrived there and he immediately rushed to the police station where he gave his fardbeyan. After the investigation, a charge-sheet under section 302 IPC was submitted against the accused and charge for the said offence was framed against the appellant by an order dated 16.12.1986.

(3.) During the trial, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses; the informant has been examined as P.W.1, P.W.2 is the inquest witness and P.W.3 has been tendered for cross-examination. P.W.4 is Dr. S.N. Prasad who has proved the post-mortem examination report prepared by Dr. S.K. Sinha. P.W.5 is also a formal witness; he has proved the First Information Report and signature of the informant over there.