R.K. Merathia and D.N. Upadhyay, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 20.11.2000 and sentence dated 21.11.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 397 of 1995 by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj convicting the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
(2.) The prosecution case in short is as follows: Basudeo Singh lodged an information on 30.4.1995 with police that on 29.4.1995 at about 12:00 A.M. in day hours, he went to his village and at about 7:00 A.M., one Surjan Singh came and told him that his second wife was killed and the dead body was lying in the western Ahar of the village. Upon such information, he rushed towards the place of occurrence. The other villagers were also talking about the occurrence. The informant enquired from his first wife who disclosed that Jeera Devi (deceased) told them last night at about 8:00 P.M. at the time of cooking vegetable that she is going outside, but she did not return. During search in the night, nothing was noticed and in the morning, on Hallah they went to western Ahar of the village along with others and saw the dead body of the Jeera Devi. There was swelling upon her neck and her "Hasuli" was missing from her person. The villagers assembled, but the appellant was absent. It is alleged that the appellant was beaten for outraging modesty of niece of the informant - Lalita Devi about a year back. Upon suspicion, appellant was called. The appellant confessed his guilt that he called Jeera Devi and committed rape with her and then kill her by throttling and removed her Hasuli made of silver and threw the dead body in the water, and that the Hasuli was kept in his house. It is further said in the F.I.R. that the appellant gave the reason that about a year ago, he was assaulted by Basudeo Singh and others. He asked for pardon. He showed the place of occurrence and the place where he had thrown the dead body. The villagers proceeded towards his house and there he brought out the Hasuli belonging to the deceased. The informant alleged that due to enmity, the appellant has committed the crime and he has confessed his guilt. Though the appellant was charged under Section 376, 302, 379, 201 & 411 of I.P.C., but he has been convicted only under Section 302 of I.P.C. During trial 15 witnesses have been examined.
(3.) Mr. A. B. Mahata, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that except the appellant's alleged confession, there is nothing against him. All the witnesses are hearsay witnesses. After the dead body was recovered, it is alleged that the appellant confessed his guilt. The Hasuli said to be belonging to the deceased was produced by the appellant himself and it was not seized or recovered from the possession of the appellant. He also submitted that appellant is in jail for about 16 years by now.;