- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.12.2001 passed by Sri Radha Govind Singh Nagesh. 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 576 of 1995 by which judgment he found the appellants guilty under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo 10 years R.I. under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and 3 years R.I. under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each and in default of fine to undergo 3 months S.I. However, he directed both the sentences shall run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case was started on the basis of a written report given by Chaukidar 4/7 Lalan Manjhi of Manika Police Station on 9.1.1995 stating therein that on 9.1.1995 at about 10.00 A.M. in the morning he had gone for an inspection to Village Palheya where he got information that the daughter -in -law of Chanarik Mistry wife of Suresh Mistry was done to death on 9.12.1994 at 10 a. m. and her dead body had been concealed by them. It is further submitted that Manorama Devi daughter of Shivnandan Mistry has stated that his son -in -law Suresh Mistry was demanding cow and buffalo as dowry and his father was not giving the same, he used to torture her. He further stated that father -in -law Chanarik Mistry, mother -in -law, Mano Devi and husband, Suresh Mistry have committed the murder of the deceased and concealed the dead body. On the basis of the said written report given by Chaukidar 4/7 Lalan Manjhi of Manika Police Station the police registered a case under Sections 498A/304B/ 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation police submitted charge -sheet under Section 304B/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions and subsequently transferred to the Court of 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Latehar, who commenced the trial and passed the impugned order and found the appellants guilty as aforesaid.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is absolutely no evidence, although the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses, but witnesses 1, 2, 3, 7 & 9 have turned hostile while witnesses P.Ws. 6 & 7 were tendered witnesses. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 10, have stated that they saw the victim girl, Manorma Devi, who had hanged herself in her house. The Investigating Officer, who was examined as P.W. 11 also stated that the victim had committed suicide. P.W. 12, is the formal witness who has proved the formal F.I.R. marked as Ext. -4. The police has recovered the dead body, which was examined by the doctor - P.W. 10, who stated that the cause of death is crushed injury on the right side of head caused by hard and blunt substance. The autopsy of the dead body revealed that the deceased said to have died 13 days back and further shows that the dead body recovered cannot be the dead body of Manorama Devi, who died in January, 1995. As per the informant himself, she died on 9th December, 1994 as such the conviction of the appellants by the trial court is without any evidence and the same is only fit to be set aside.;