RAGHU MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.8.2004 and 8.9.2004 respectively passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 229 of 2002, convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also convicting him under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for one month. However, all the sentences ordered to be run concurrently. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.1.2002 Puran Chandra Basuki (P.W. 1) lodged a Fardbeyan at about 9.20 A.M. along with his son P.W. 3 (Sagun Basuki) before police that dead body of his daughter Urmila Kumari (deceased) aged about 20 years was found thrown in the vacant land near the house of one Rajendra Prasad on the heap of stone chips and bricks. The statement was recorded near the dead body. The informant said that the deceased was a daily wager who used to go for work at about 7 A.M. She was working under the appellant for last 3 years and used to live with him most of the time. Sometimes she did not return to her home and used to stay at the place of work. The informant got the information about the death from the police. When he was coming to the police station, P.W. 4 and his brother P.W. 5 who were the known persons of the appellant called him and said that the appellant was keeping her (Urmila) for last three years as wife without marriage. P.W. 4 and 5 former told him that on the previous day i.e. on 18.1.2002 when Urmila came to Tata for work, she went to the house of the appellant and later on at about 8 A.M. they saw the deceased going with the appellant on his TVS bike. P.W. 4 and 5 further told him that P.W. 4 asked the appellant as to where he was taking Urmila. On this, the appellant replied that they were going to bring building materials. P.W. 4 further told the informant that Urmila and the appellant both did not turn up for work for whole day. P.W. 4 further told the informant that when he was working at one place, the appellant came to him at about 5 P.M. and told that Urmila was not well and therefore he requested P.W. 4 for helping him for taking her to his house to which P.W. 4 expressed his inability. On this the appellant who had come over a tempo in which deceased was lying proceeded ahead. The informant further stated that the friend of Urmila, namely, Jeetmuni Murmu (P.W. 6) also told him that the deceased was pregnant from the appellant. She also told him that the appellant always used to take her on his bike to the market and to his house and used to keep her to his house. The informant lastly alleged that the appellant had committed sexual assault with the deceased due to which she became pregnant. He persuaded her for abortion and forcibly administered medicine and finally killed her and threw her dead body for concealing the evidence.

(2.) Mr. Sanjay Jha. learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted as follows. The conviction of the appellant is based on the story of last seen. In such a case of circumstantial evidence, prosecution has failed to prove the motive. The prosecution has not proved that the deceased was pregnant with the appellant. There are vital contradictions in the prosecution case. P.W. 4 and 5 did not support the story said to have been disclosed by them in the F.I.R. There was no occasion for P.W. 4 and 5 to remain present at the place where the dead body was recovered. Place of occurrence has not been clearly established by the I.O. Some important witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to rivalry.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the State, supported the impugned judgment.