- (1.) These Criminal Appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25th February, 2004 and 26th February, 2004 respectively, passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2 Godda in connection with Sessions Case Nos. 46 of 2002/78 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1115 of 2001, arising out of Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 154 of 2001, whereby the appellants namely Jagdeo Singh, Badami Devi and Basuki Singh in Cr. Appeal No. 846 of 2004 have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for one year, u/s. 201/34 IPC rigorous imprisonment for five years. Appellant namely Ganga Singh in Cr. Appeal No. 812 of 2004 has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 201/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Appellant namely Mantu Singh @ Amrendra Kumar has been held guilty for the offence u/s. 201/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - and in case of default simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
(2.) The case of the prosecution as it appears from the written report lodged by Subhash Prasad Singh, in brief, is that on 5.11.2001 Sagar Singh eldest son of informant was taken by his maternal grand father Jagdeo Singh on the pretext that maternal grand mother of Sagar Singh (deceased) is willing to see him. On 11.11.2001 Mantu Singh brother -in -law (sala) of informant informed that Sagar Singh is missing from the house. Thereafter, Sujata Devi wife of informant along with Dinesh Prasad Singh younger brother of the informant went to village Khajurma and enquired the whereabouts of Sagar from her mother and father, but, they did not give satisfactory explanation. When they met with Bhagat Jee he told that boy is safe, nothing to worry. The wife and brother of the informant made a search, but, they could not succeed to find out Sagar and, therefore, they returned back to their village. On 16.11.2001 the appellant Jagdeo Singh made a telephonic call and said that dead body of Sagar, floating into a well has been noticed. It is also disclosed that one of the son of Jagdeo Singh was missing from last five years and he was suggested by the Bhagat Basuki Singh, if he would sacrifice a boy his son would return back. The informant went to the house of father -in -law Jagdeo Singh and enquired about Sagar, but, they said that dead body of Sagar has already been cremated. When pressure was created Jagdeo Singh took the informant and other witnesses to burning ghat where dead body of Sagar was burried. Jagdeo Singh dug out the dead body of Sagar thereafter the matter was brought to the notice of Police and written report was lodged. It is alleged that appellant Jagdeo Singh sacrificed Sagar under superstition. On the basis of written report lodged by Subhash Prasad Singh (PW -5)Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 154 dated 16.11.2001 U/Ss. 302/201/34 IPC against all the appellants and one Baidya Nath Singh was registered. The Police after due investigation submitted charge sheet against all the six accused named in the F.I.R. And, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 46 of 2002/78 of 2002.
(3.) The charges U/Ss. 302, 201/34 Indian Penal Code against the appellants and co -convict Baidya Nath Singh were framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charges the prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses including informant, doctor, investigating officer and proved documents like post -mortem report, inquest report, written report, formal F.I.R. etc. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Godda placing reliance on the evidence and documents available, held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Ss. 302/201/34 IPC and sentenced them as indicated above.;