SOYANA SARDAR @ SOYNA SARDAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2012-3-222
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on March 29,2012

Soyana Sardar @ Soyna Sardar Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.4.2002 and 22.4.2002 respectively passed by Sri P.N. Lal, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in Sessions Trial No. 248 of 1999 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302/201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 201 IPC. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Prosecution case, in short, is that Namsi Sardarin (PW6) gave fardbeyan on 25.1.1999 at about 12.00 noon that on 17.1.1999 at about 2.00 p.m. the appellant, on threat to assault, took Lota Sardarin (deceased), towards the jungle and thereafter she did not return. Then the informant (PW6) informed her uncle Rawan Sardar who told about the occurrence to the villagers. After that day, the appellant also did not return to his house. On search, he was found in the house of her maternal uncle. Panchayati was held but he did not disclose anything. There was an illicit relation going on between the appellant and the deceased. Thereafter, it was alleged that the appellant had taken her with an intention to kill her and had made her disappear.
(2.) AS per the prosecution, after the dead body of the Lota Sardarin was recovered on the confession of the appellant, Seraikella PS case no. 6 of 1999 was registered under section 302/201IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant who faced the trial and was convicted as aforesaid.
(3.) MR . Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the chain of circumstances is not complete and the dead body was not recovered on the confession of the appellant and that except that the appellant was last seen with the deceased, there is nothing against him. It was submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for more than 12 years. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, supported the impugned judgment.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.