D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THESE appeals are directed against a common judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.2.1990 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 302/201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 and five years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE appellants were also charged with for offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code along with the offences under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Brief facts of the case is that on 2.10.1986, Rajendra Kumar Mahto (deceased), a minor son of the informant Sarju Prasad Mahto, resident of Village Silwar Kalan, left his house in the morning at 10.00 a.m. for playing nearby, but he did not return home till 2.00 P.M. whereupon the informant and members of his family made a search for the boy but they could not find him. Ultimately two days later, in the morning of 4th October, 1986, the informant lodged a written report at the Police Station informing that his minor son was missing since 2.10.1986. The written report was registered and a formal FIR was drawn up at the Hazaribagh Police Station against unknown. The informant had also produced a copy of an unsigned letter which he had received on 11.9.1986 containing a demand for ransom of rupees one lakh, coupled with a direction that the money be deposited at a specified place and a threat that failure to comply with the direction would result in the death of seven members of his family. Copy of the aforesaid letter was delivered along with his written report by the informant to the officer in charge of the Police Station. Investigation of the case was taken up on the same day and in course of investigation, it was gathered by the officer in charge that the letter had been delivered by the appellant Jagdeo Yadav. On the night of 4.10.1986, appellants Jagdeo Yadav and Dasrath Mahto were arrested from their respective houses at village Jordag situated within Churchu Police Station. On the basis of alleged confessional statement leading to recovery, the dead body of the missing son of the informant was recovered from within the bushes at Gurhait Forest which falls also within the jurisdiction of Churchu Police Station at a distance of about 15 -20 Kms. from the village of the informant. After preparation of the inquest report, the dead body was forwarded for post mortem. During investigation, two witnesses namely Bakrid Mian (PW5) and Maqbul Hussain (PW6) had appeared before the investigating officer on 11.10.1986 and had given, their respective statements claiming that on 2.10.1986, i.e. the day on which the deceased went missing, both these witnesses had seen the boy being taken by the appellants Jagdeo Yadav and Butan Mahto on their bicycle and on enquiry by the witnesses, Jagdeo Yadav had replied that the boy was being taken to his grand fathers house at village Jordag. The statements of these witnesses were recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the code of Criminal Procedure 20.10.1986. During the course of the investigation, the investigating officer had seized two registered envelops from the post office situated within the campus of St. Columbus College at Hazaribagh. These letters and the photo copy of the letter earlier received by the informant were sent for examination by the hand writing expert along with the specimen handwriting of the appellant Jadgeo Yadav. The report of the handwriting expert was received which indicated that the handwritings on the letters tallied with the specimen handwriting of the appellant Jagdeo Yadav. The appellant Butan Mahato was arrested on 6.10.1986. He too had allegedly confessed before the investigating officer and on the basis of his confession and on his pointing out the place from where the dead body was recovered, the recovery was re -affirmed.
(3.) AS many as 18 witnesses were examined by the prosecution at the trial. A few witnesses were also examined on behalf of the appellants as defence witnesses. The plea of the appellants in their defence was that they were falsely implicated by the informant on account of previous enmity over a land dispute.;