R.K.MERATHIA,AJIT KUMAR SINHA - (1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 4.7.1992 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1988 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him under Section 302 Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and for the offence under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) PROSECUTION case in short is that, the informant Puni Mundain, wife of the deceased Kaila Munda gave a fard beyan before the police on 6.7.1987 at about 3.30 P.M. that on the previous day, her husband, her nephew Etwa and villager, Nago Munda came back home after selling Meat with the unsold Meat. She cooked it and all were taking their meals. In the meantime, the appellant came in intoxicated state and started abusing them that they are not giving Meat to him. On this, she gave him some Meat to eat and thereafter he went back. Then her nephew Etwa Munda and villager Nago Munda went back to their home. About one hour thereafter, i.e. at about 11 -12:00 at night, the appellant again came to her house. He was heavily drunk and started assaulting her husband by fists and slaps. When she intervened, he assaulted her also by fists. Due to fear, her husband ran out from the house. The appellant chased and assaulted him with fists and slaps and killed him by strangulation and then concealed his dead body in the well. She raised alarm, but nobody came. In the morning, the villagers searched out the body of her husband from the well. At the time of the alleged occurrence, her younger sister Badli Mundain and sisters daughter Sheelwati Kachap were present who had seen the occurrence. On such ferdbayan F.I.R. was drawn. Charge -sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence was that the dead body of the deceased was found in the same well in which his son had also fallen and died and so it might be that the deceased out of sorrow and grief had jumped into the well and the appellant had falsely been implicated in this case.
(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that appellant had no intention to kill and, at best, it is a case under Section 304 Part II I.P.C.;