D.N.PRASAD AND H.S.PRASAD JJ. - (1.) THE sole appellant preferred this appeal from jail against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.9.1992 passed by Shri Anant Prasad Shrivastava, Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 1991, whereby and whereunder, the learned Judicial Commissioner convicted the appellant for the offence under sections 302/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that one Uruwa Devi, widow of the deceased Dhepa Munda, recorded her fard beyan alleging therein that there was a quarrel between her husband Dhepa Munda and his two Sautela brothers, namely, Bhokre Munda and Chipa Munda over partition of the property. Goinda Munda, father -in -law of the informant was siding his sons from his second wife. The appellant Birsa Munda, son -in -law of Goinda Munda, was coming to the village on 17.12.1990 when the accused Birwa Munda threatened him. It is further alleged that on 18.12.1990 at about 3 P.M., accused Goinda Munda, Birsa Munda, Bhokre Munda and Chipa Munda induced away the deceased Dhepa Munda and they took him to Porhatoli market. The husband of the informant did not return in the night. On the following morning, the informant went to Sunari Jaltanda to enquire from Bandhni Mundain, sister of the deceased Dhepa Munda and there she could not come to know about her husband and it was detected that accused Birsa Munda roaming in suspicious condition when he was caught and produced before the Mukhiya where Birsa Munda disclosed that when he was returning from Porhatoli market, he, Bhokre Munda and Chipa Munda committed the murder of the deceased with Baluwa. He further disclosed that after killing Dhepa Munda, they have concealed the dead body to the side of Silaphari River, which was wrapped in Sand. The dead body was identified by the informant. On the basis of the fard beyan, the first information report was registered under Sections 364, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons who appeared before the Trial Court and after hearing both sides passed the impugned judgment convicting the appellant in the manner as stated above. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal.
(3.) THERE is an allegation in the first information report that the husband of the informant was taken away to the market and thereafter he did not return. The allegation is made against Goinda Munda, Birsa Munda (appellant), Bhokre Munda and Chipa Munda that they had induced away the deceased Dhepa Munda and thereafter the deceased did not return to his house. Thus it is obvious that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. Except circumstantial evidence, there is nothing direct or specific evidence against the appellant either for causing assault or using the weapon for causing assault to the deceased. There is only allegation made that this appellant made an extra judicial confession before the villagers as well as on the indication of this appellant, the dead body was recovered and seized from the bank of the river. But it is settled law that extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence that must be corroborated and substantiated by cogent and reliable evidence before taking into account the said extra judicial confession to be a basis for the conviction.;