VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THE sole appellant named above has preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 21.1.1998 and the order dated 28.1.1998 passed in ST No. 66 of 1990 by Shri Dilip Kumar Sinha, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and RI. for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to undergo imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 7) of PW 4, Babu Ram Bedia, the informant recorded by Sri J.R. Singh, S.I. Bharkunda P.S. on 29.7.1989 at 12.30 hours at Bharkunda P.S. regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place in the night between 28th and 29th of July, 1989 in the house of the deceased situate in the village Sanki P.S. Bharkunda (Patratu) District Hazaribagh. Golua Bedia @ Chinua Bedia is the deceased of this case. PW 4, Babu Ram Bedia, the informant is the son of the sister of the deceased whereas appellant Doman Bedia is the eldest son of the said deceased. The case was instituted on that very day at 14.30 hours and the formal FIR and the fardbeyan was received in the Court empowered to take cognizance on 31.7.1989. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant awoke at 5 Oclock in the morning on 29.7.1989 and he came out for urination and found a Sendh cut in the west south corner of the house of the deceased and after urination he came to the room of the deceased and found it locked from outside and, thereafter, he called his brother PW 9, Gobardhan Bedia and also appellant Doman Bedia and informed them about the cutting of the Sendh and, thereafter, the appellant awoke his brother PW 6, Ghashi Bedia and asked him to bring the key of the lock of the said room. It is alleged that Ghashi Bedia opened the lock of the room of the deceased but the door was found to be bolted from inside and it could not be opened and, thereafter, PW 6 Ghashi Bedia asked PW 10, Rameshwar Bedia @ Ramesh, the third son of the deceased to go inside the said room through the passage over the inner wall of the house of the appellant and said Rameshwar Bedia @ Ramesh went inside the house of the appellant and he entered into the room of the deceased through the passage of the inner wall of the said house of the appellant and opened the door of the said room. The prosecution case further is that, thereafter, the informant along with the persons aforesaid went inside the said room and found Golua Bedia dead and there was a deep Injury on his neck caused by some sharp pointed weapon and there was copious blood fallen there and dead body was lying on his knee and the neck of the dead body was bent. It is further alleged that no person can enter into the said room from outside through the said Sendh and the person who has committed the murder of the deceased must have entered through the wall inside the house of the appellant and the appellant resides in his house with his wife along with PW 2 Jhubra Bedia, the youngest son of the deceased. The prosecution case further is that PW 1, Mahesh Mahto and PW 2 Meghnath Singh, the Mukhiya and Sarpanch, respectively also came there and said that nobody can enter inside the said room from outside through the said Sendh and on query PW 5, Jhubra Bedia aged about 7 or 8 years told that, the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased by causing injury by tangi by entering into his room through the wall of his house. It is alleged that the wife of the deceased had died 2 or 3 years prior to the occurrence and Golua Bedia, the deceased of this case works in the Lapanga Colliery and he was desirous to re -solemnize his marriage with Manju Devi as he was feeling difficulty in cooking which was protested to by the appellant. It is also alleged that the appellant also wanted to get a job in the colliery at the place of his father Golua Bedia and for that there used to be altercations between them. The deceased had four sons and the appellant is the eldest son of the deceased and he is married living separately with his wife in the room adjacent the said room of the deceased. Lastly it has been alleged that it appears that the appellant has committed the murder of the deceased with a view to get the job in the colliery.
(3.) THE appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and he claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and that he has been falsely implicated in this case as a result of the conspiracy of the informant who was admittedly inimical to him as of deceased due to litigation prior to the occurrence.;