Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Per Ananda Sen, J. These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants Bipin Mirdha @ Kundan Kumar Yadav and Niranjan Kumar Yadav, respectively, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 27th January, 2011 and order of sentence dated 29th January, 2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 2010, whereby and where under both the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months; and they have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

5. Poraiyahat Police Station Case No.27 of 2010 was registered for offences under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown on the basis of the written report of the informant, Bajrangi Yadav. In the written report lodged by the informant, it has been alleged that on 30.01.2010 (Saturday), his uncle Manilal Mandal along with his son, appellant Niranjan Yadav, after returning from school, left at 12.15 p.m. for Basukinath for performing puja. After performing puja the deceased, Manilal Mandal and his son, started from Basukinath at 04.30 p.m. for Godda. At about 06.30 p.m. in the evening, after crossing Poraiyahat and ahead of Suggabagan, the tyre of the motorcycle got punctured. Thereafter the appellant Niranjan Yadav, leaving his father there, left for Poraiyahat to repair the vehicle. After getting the motorcycle repaired, when the appellant Niranjan Yadav reached Sugga Bagan at about 07.30 p.m., he did not find his father there, so he though his father would have gone to Godda. Appellant Niranjan Yadav, on motorcycle, went to Godda and searched his father at home, where he found that his father had not reached. Appellant Niranjan Yadav from Godda went to his own home Buthoun and there also he did not get any clue. Thereafter the villagers and community people started searching for him. Thereafter on 31.01.2010 at about 03.00 p.m. missing report was lodged. On 01.02.2010 while searching along with the villagers, when they were moving towards Kathibari Mission from Raghunathpur More, they saw one shoe near the bushes and recognizing the said shoe, when they started searching, they also found another shoe and the spectacles. Thereafter when they moved ahead, they saw the dead body of the deceased in a wheat and mustard field. On seeing the same, it appeared that someone has killed the deceased by pressing his neck and has thrown the body in the wheat field to conceal it. This report was given by P.W.1 who is the nephew of the deceased and cousin of the appellant Niranjan Yadav.

14. The appellants were convicted in this case. The written report was lodged by P.W.1. In the written report, which was lodged by P.W.1, Bajrangi Yadav, who happens to be the nephew of the deceased and cousin of appellant Niranjan Yadav, it was narrated that Manilal (deceased) and Niranjan, on 30th January, 2010, went to Basukinath for performing Puja in a motorcycle at about 12.15 hours. While going from Basukinath to Godda, at about 06.30 p.m. the tyre of the motorcycle got punctured. Niranjan with the motorcycle came to Poraiyahat and told his father to remain there. When Niranjan Yadav returned at about 07.30 p.m. at the place where he had left his father, he could not find him. He thought that his father would have returned by a public transport, but when he returned home, he did not find his father. He searched him, but he could not trace his whereabouts. Thereafter the villagers started searching him and as his father remained untraceable, on 31.01.2010 at about 03.00 p.m. a missing report was lodged.

24. In view of what has been observed and discussed above, it is a clear case where the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. That being so, the appellants herein deserves to be acquitted.

25. Both the appellants are, accordingly, acquitted. The judgment of conviction dated 27th January, 2011 and order of sentence dated 29th January, 2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 2010 are hereby set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds and so are the sureties/bailers.