- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30 -6 -2004 passed by Teamed Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court -9. Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2001, convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section. 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years. However, both the sentences were run concurrently. The prosecution casein short is that the informant (P.W.3) gave fardbeyan before police on 15.6.2000 at 10.30 hours to the effect that his daughter Renuka Devi (deceased) was married with the appellant 15 years age. They had cure baby also. Her daughter's mental condition was not good due to which the appellant used to tell that he would kill the deceased and would perform second marriage. On this, informant party advised not to do so and he may perform second marriage. Due to this reason, the appellant used to assault the deceased. On 14.6.2000 at about 2.00 P.M., the informant learnt from his son Mukund. Mahto that file appellant had murdered the deceased and had concealed his dead body under the bush. On this the informant inquired and learnt on 14.6.2006 at about 5 P.M. that from the evening of 13.6.2000, the deceased was not in her house. The informant and his friend Shankar Lohar (P.W.1) along with the appellant went to search the informant's daughter. The dead body was lying near a Nala under the bush. The dead body had injuries. When the P.W. 1 and the informant's son told the appellant to lift the dead body, he fled away. All these things created serious suspicion against the appellant that he has killed the deceased with stone like weapon for performing second marriage.
(2.) THE prosecution has examined eight witnesses. P.W. 1 is Shankar Lohar who saw the dead body. P.W. 2 is Janardan Swansi who is inquest witness. P.W. 3 Doman Mahto is informant. P.W. 4 (Sagar Mahto) is one of the son of the informant - P.W. 5 (Pooran Mahto) and P.W. 6 (Keshoki Devi) are hostile witnesses. P.W. 7 is a Doctor who conducted postmortem. P.W. 8 is a formal witness Mr. H. K. Mahato, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that there is no eyewitness and the case is based only on suspicion for which the appellant has remained in jail far about 10 years.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment.;