NARAYAN SHUKLA, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Sudhir Mehrotra learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nagendra Bahadur Singh learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra in Session Trial No. 57 of 2001 (State v. Jokhan Gond ), whereby the trial court convicted the accused person/appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. He was sentenced for four years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 3000/- fine for offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine imposed under Section 302 I.P.C., he will further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. in default of payment of the fine will undergo three more months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences shall go concurrently.
(3.) Brief facts of the case. (I) As per the prosecution story, the accused Jokhan Gond resident of Village Pipri Sonwani, Police Station Anpara, District Sonebhadra was residing in his in-laws house and he was driving Tractor of deceased Sukalu Kesari on the salary of Rs. 1500/- per month. After one and half months, he left the job and joined another job as driver of the tractor of one Deendayal in Village Pipri Sonwani. When the appellant was working as Tractor driver of deceased Sukalu Kesari, the deceased had given some money to him. The accused had returned the money back after leaving his job. (II) On 31.12.2000 the deceased Sukalu Kesari started from house at about 7:30 a.m. to go the place of accused for recovery of money, which had been given to the accused-appellant. As per PW-1 Bhagwan Das, who is son of the deceased stated in his statement that his father went to village Sonwani for recovery of money from the accused Jokhan Gond and he had returned back to home. He had informed his uncle Lalchand that the deceased went to meet the accused Jokhan Gond for recovery of money, but he did return back. The police station Chopan was informed regarding the missing of the deceased vide written report dated 05.01.2001 given by PW-1 Bhagwan Das. In the report, it was stared that the deceased went to the place of the accused for recovery of the money and did return back. From that date he was missing. III. On 06.01.2001, after the missing report, the Inspector along with Radhey Shyam, Gulab Prasad and Bhagwan Das went to Jokhan Gond's house at Sonwani, where he was residing with in-laws. When police asked Jokhan Gond about the deceased then he confessed that he killed Sukalu Kesari. His body was thrown in drain near Lamsodi. On his statement, police taken Jokhan Gond at the place, where he pointed out that he thrown the dead body of the deceased in the drain. At his instance, the dead body was traced and recovered. Police made recovery memo of dead body and Gulab, Radhey Shyam and Bhagwan Das made signature on the memo of recovery as Ex. Ka-3. IV. The police also recovered sweater, shirt, shoes along with the dead body and the recovery memo of the articles was also prepared, the dead body was sent for the post-mortem. After arrest of Jokhan Gond, police had also recovered the weapon which was used in the incident. V. On 07.01.2001, PW-6 Dr. S.N. Sharma had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, the following injuries was found on the body of the deceased: i. Incised wound 4 x 1 cm. in the middle of forehead, bone under which was fractured. ii. Lacerated wound of 2 x 1 cm. on the right side of forehead just above the ear, bone beneath was fractured. iii. Lacerated wound of 2 x 8 cm. on the left side of forehead just above the ear. iv. Abrasion of 1 x 3 cm. on the left side of the forehead just above the eye. The autopsy surgeon opined that on account of grievous injury on vital part i.e. head caused hemorrhage which resulted in comma and death. VI. The charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. On 22.09.2001, the Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. against the appellant/accused. The accused had denied the charges and pleaded guilty. He stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case and pleaded for trial. VII. The trial was proceeded as S.T.No. 57/2001 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra. The prosecution examined seven witnesses i.e. PW-1 Sri Bhagwan Das, PW-2 Gulab, PW- 3 Anjani Kumar Singh, PW-4 Duryodhan, PW-5 Sub-Inspector Gopal Singh, PW-6 Dr. S. N. Sharma, PW-7 Constable Indramani Singh to prove his case beyond any doubt. Entire prosecution case is on the basis of circumstantial evidence. VIII. As per the statement of PW-1 Bhagwan Das, he stated in his deposition that his father (deceased Sukalu Kesari) kept the accused as a Tractor Driver on the salary of Rs. 1500/- per month. The accused did his job about one and half months and thereafter he left the job and went to his in-laws house where he got the job of Tractor driver of one Deendayal. Since the accused had taken some rupees from his father-deceased, therefore, the deceased on 31.12.2000 went to the place of accused to ask the said money back. IX. PW-2 Gulab Prasad stated in his deposition that his brother deceased Sukalu Kesari went to meet the accused to ask his money back which was taken by the accused, when he was driving his Tractor. The accused had taken some money from the deceased. He further submitted that the deceased went to the shop of his son (PW-1 Bhagwan Das) and informed him that he was going to the place of accused to recover the said money which was given to the accused at the time when he was driving his Tractor. He deposed in his deposition that they had searched deceased for three days but he could be traced and therefore, missing complaint was filed in the police station. On that complaint, an F.I.R. was lodged. The dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused. The dead body was recognized by the witnesses. Police had prepared the memo of recovery of the dead body. PW-2 signed the recovery memo of dead body. X. PW-3 Anjani Kumar Singh and PW-4 Duryodhan were witnesses of recovery of the weapon which was used in the crime and they signed on the recovery memo of the weapon. They deposed that the accused person confessed his offence in front of the police and other witnesses. XI. PW-5 S.I. Gopal Singh, police station Bindamganj, Sonebhadra deposed that the missing report of deceased was given by the PW-1 Bhagwan Das. He recovered the dead body of deceased and weapon used in the crime. He made memo of recovery of the dead body as well as recovery memo of the weapon. He further stated in the deposition that the dead body and weapon were recovered at the instance of the accused person. He stated in the deposition that the dead body was composed and same was sent for the post-mortem in the district hospital. XII. PW-6, Dr. S.N. Sharma conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and he prepared the post-mortem report Ex.Ka-21. The following injuries was found on the body of the deceased Sukalu Kesari: i. Incised wound 4 x 1 cm. in the middle of forehead, bone under which was fractured. ii. Lacerated wound of 2 x 1 cm. on the right side of forehead just above the ear, bone beneath was fractured. iii. Lacerated wound of 2 x 8 cm. on the left side of forehead just above the ear. iv. Abrasion of 1 x 3 cm. on the left side of the forehead just above the eye. He opined that on account of grievous injury to vital part i.e. head caused hemorrhage which resulted in comma and death. He also found that the death was happened before 70 hours from the time when post-mortem was conducted. All injuries caused by blunt edged weapon. XIII. The appellant-accused had denied all charges and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case due to the previous enmity. He denied all allegations in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 XIV. After perusal of the statement made by witnesses and other materials on the record, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. Sentenced him to undergo for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., in default of payment of the fine he will further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Four years imprisonment and Rs. 3,000/- fine for offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C., in default of the payment of the fine further he will undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. XV. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the instant jail appeal bearing No. 7500 of 2007 filed before this Court.;