- (1.) BY Court. -The accused appeals. Srichand Mahto appellant was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Godda for offences punishable under sections 302/307 of Indian Penal Code, a5 well as under sections 25A and 27 of the Arms Act. The trial Judge, finding the appellant guilty under section 302 IPC convicted and sentenced the appellant for .life while he was found not guilty under the other charges. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life.
(2.) THE facts are as follows: Pw 1 Bilkhi Devi is the daughter of the deceased Phuleshwari Devi. They were residing at Paradih village. The appellant wanted the deceased to settle some lands in his name but the deceased was not willing to do so. The appellant sold away certain ornaments as well as a goat belonging to the deceased. On the date of the incident. the deceased Phuleshwar Devi asked the accused as to who committed theft of 'San' (jute). A quarrel ensued between the appellant and the deceased during which the appellant threatened to kill her. At about 9.00 a.m. the deceased was taking a she -goat to tie it and at that time the appellant went there and prevented the deceased from taking the goat. Pw 1, the wife of the appellant and the daughter of the deceased, was also present. She took the goat from her mother and tied it to a pole and returned to her house. On returning to the house, she found the door of the room bolted from inside and she knocked the door and called her husband who was inside the room. She also called her mother by her name. A few moments thereafter, the appellant came out of the room after opening the door and Pw 1 saw her mother with injuries and hanging with a Dharan (roof). She raised alarm. Pw 1 questioned the appellant as to why he killed her mother but the appellant without replying to Pw 1 ran away from the place. At that point of time, Pws. 3 to 8 as well as Pw 10 rushed to the place on hearing the cries of Pw 1. They saw the appellant running away from the place with a pistol in his hand. The witnesses attempted to apprehend the appellant but could not succeed. Though the appellant opened fire, no witness was injured, but it only enabled the appellant to escape as the witnesses were afraid to chase him thereafter. Pw 16, the officer -in -charge of Godda PS arrived at the scene of the occurrence at 12.45 p. m. He recorded Ext. 4, the fard beyan, given by Pw 1 and later at the police station it was registered as Exhibit 5, the printed First Information Report (FIR). Investigation in the crime was taken up by Pw 16. He examined the witnesses and prepared the inquest report Ext. 6 during which statements of the witnesses were recorded. After inquest, he sent the requisition Exhibit -7 to the medical officer requesting him to conduct autopsy on the dead body of the deceased.
(3.) ON receipt of the requisition, PW 15, Dr. Raghuvendra Prasad Chaudhary, Medical Officer attached to Govt. Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and he found the following injuries: i. Abrasion with burns on both sides of the neck and front of the neck, except the posterior part of the neck with the impression of string attached to the neck; ii. Abrasion on the left elbow in the size of 6" x 1 ". On dissection the following was found: (i) neck -tracle and oesophague, collapsed with fracture of the hyoid bone; (ii) chest -lungs distended and congested and frothed blood coming out on cutting; (iii) heart -left chamber empty right chamber frothy blood; (iv) abdomen -liver spleen kidney all congested and frothy blood coming out on seopion. (v) head -no fracture of skull. Brain substance congested." The doctor issued Ext. 3, post mortem certificate, opining that the death is on account of asphyxia due to throttling followed by hanging immediately.;