Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 228 (JHR)

Murli Yadav v. State of Bihar

2010-02-10

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.7.2000 passed by Shri Kamala Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in Sessions Trial Case No 50 of 1980, by which judgment, he found the appellant, Murli Yadav guilty for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove that the disappearance of dead body was caused by this appellant, Murli Yadav. According to Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. "Whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, cause any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening offender from legal punishment or with that intention gives any information respecting offence, "which he knows or believe to be false", which he has believed to be false committed offence, but in the instant case, there is no evidence and only because the appellant happens to be the husband of the victim lady, he has been held guilty. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that although the prosecution has not adduced many evidences, but the evidences of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are sufficient to prove the fact that the appellant, Murli Yadav and his mother both had the knowledge that the deceased, the wife of the appellant, Gujari Devi has been done to death, and the dead body has been thrown in well and when the informant wanted to search the well with the help of the villagers, they stopped them, which proved that they are guilty. In that view of the matter, the conviction is proper and requires no interference by this Court. 5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of written report filed by the informant, Taleshwar Yadav on 28.11.1987 stating therein that his sister, Gujari Devi was married to Murli Yadav S/o Dilawar Yadav about one year back and just fifteen days before the occurrence, they had taken his sister after 'Rukshadi'. Suddenly on 27.11.1987, Dilawar Yadav, the father of the appellant came to the house of the informant and enquired as to whether his sister, Gujari Devi has come back to her house, whereupon he denied and enquired about Gujari Devi. Then, he stated that she had run away from the house after some fight. Then, they searched her in the house of their relatives. Then, on 28.11.1987, with the help of the villagers of Karakhut village, they started searching the well near the house of Dilawar Yadav and they found the dead body from the well. The mouth of the deceased was closed by putting clothes in her mouth. The villagers said that the accused Murli Yadav and his father Dilawar Yadav have committed murder of his sister and in order to screen the offence, they had put the dead body in the well. The dead body, which has been extracted from the well, is lying at the Village Karakhut. 6. On the basis of written report, police registered a case for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused Murli Yadav and Dilawar Yadav under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned C.J.M. after taking cognizance, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and lastly the case was tried by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma, who passed the judgment as aforesaid. 8. It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined four witnesses. P.W. 1 is Jainuddin Khan, who is the formal witness. P.W. 2 is Janki Devi, who has turned hostile. P.W. 3 is Taleshwar Yadav, who is the informant in the case. P.W. 4 is Mohan Yadav. 9. P.W. 1, Jainuddin Khan has proved the formal F.I.R. in the writing of the officer-in-harge, Ramchandra Prasad of Koderma Police Station, which was marked as Ext.-1. P.W. 2, Janki Devi has stated in court that the victim lady, Gujari Devi was married with the appellant, Murli Yadav and she was living in her sasural. She heard that the dead body of the Gujari Devi was found from the well. She had seen the dead body. In her cross-examination at para 3, she denied that she stated to the police that the dead body was extracted from the well on 28.11.1987. She heard that the dead body of the Gujari Devi was found from the well. She had seen the dead body. In her cross-examination at para 3, she denied that she stated to the police that the dead body was extracted from the well on 28.11.1987. Then, the villagers stated that the accused Murali Yadav and his father has committed the murder and thrown the dead body in the well. P.W. 3, Taleshwar Yadav has supported the prosecution case and stated that his sister, Gujari Devi was married with the accused Murali Yadav about 8-10 days back. She had been taken by the accused Murali Yadav after 'Rukshadi' to his house and on the date of occurrence, Dilawar Yadav came to the house and said that his sister has gone away. Then, he searched for her and when he wanted to search the well near about the house of the accused by putting jhaggar on the same, then, the family members of the appellant asked them not to search the well as the dead body was not there and when he wanted to put jhaggar in a well just by the side of the house of the accused, then his mother caught hold of the jhaggar and said that they cannot put jhaggar in it and the jhaggar was put by force and then the dead body was recovered from the said well. He proved his signature on the written report and also proved the written report as Ext.-2. P.W. 4, Mohan Yadav has only said that he saw the dead body of the deceased Gujari Devi, who was recovered from the well. 10. Thus, from the aforesaid witnesses, although, it is not conclusively proved that the accused Murali Yadav was trying to screen the commission of murder of his wife, but in fact, from the evidences of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, P.W. 2 has turned hostile, but she had stated to police that the dead body was thrown by the accused and his family members and P.W. 3 has also stated that the family members obstructed, when the search was being made in the well. Thus, from the evidences discussed above, their knowledge can be inferred that the dead body was thrown in the well and they were trying to screen. Thus, from the evidences discussed above, their knowledge can be inferred that the dead body was thrown in the well and they were trying to screen. In that view of the matter, his conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be disturbed. However, since there is no direct evidence and only from the circumstances, it appears that the accused was trying to screen the offence. 11. In that view of the matter, his sentence is reduced to the period of four and half months already undergone by the appellant during trial from 11.12.1987 to 7.3.1988 and subsequently, after conviction from 31.7.1988 to 4.9.2000. 12. With the aforesaid alteration in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed.