V.N. Sinha, J.@mdashThis appeal has been filed by the sole accused-appellant challenging the judgment/order dated 21.8.2006/25.8.2006, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda, Biharsharif, in Sessions Trial No. 522/2004/Tr. No. 55/04, whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 364, 302 of the Penal Code and Section 3(X), 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act with direction to suffer sentence of life imprisonment under the two counts of the Penal Code as also to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lacs. In default of payment of fine to further suffer sentence of simple imprisonment for two years. u/s 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act appellant has also been directed to undergo life sentence and to pay a fine of Rs. 3 lacs, in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for two years. The sentences have, however, been directed to run concurrently. Prosecution case as set out in the fardbeyan of Chamru Sapera (P.W.7), Ext. 6, recorded by Sub-Inspector Tulsi Ram (P.W. 8), in Ghoshrawan village, near High School i.e. on 16.01.2004 around 3.00 P.M. is that he along with his wife Sunaina Devi, cousin Naresh Sapera (P.W. 4), aunt Shakila Devi (P.W. 3) boarded trekker bearing Registration No. BR 1P 3699 from Ramchandrapur bus stand for coming to Village Durgapur. His wife has also taken along with her newly born twenty days'' old infant in her lap. In the trekker besides the informant, his wife and other relatives, villagers of Bishunpur, Ghoshrawan, Durgapur were also passengers. The driver of the trekker was of village Ghoshrawan. In course of journey there was quarrel between a boy passenger of village Ghoshrawan and another passenger. The boy passenger of village Ghoshrawan not only assaulted the other passenger but also forced him to alight from the trekker at Pawapuri Chowk. While the boy and the other passenger indulged in altercation and the boy assaulted the other passenger, wife of the informant intervened and entered into altercation with the boy. The boy passenger asked the wife of the informant about her destination, on which she replied that she is going to Durgapur to meet her relation, the boy then asked the wife of the informant about her caste. Informant''s wife disclosed to the boy that she is of Nut caste and is travelling with her husband, brother, mother-in-law. It is further stated in the fardbeyan that no sooner the boy learnt that the wife of the informant is of Nut caste, he abused her introducing himself as an outlawed (Rangadar) of the area and further disclosed his name as Dhirendra Kumar Singh (appellant) and also stated that she being a Harijan ought not to have entered into altercation with him, and again abused her claiming that he will teach lesson to her before reaching Durgapur. The informant further stated that his wife also proclaimed before the boy that he cannot do any mischief to her. It is further stated that no sooner the wife of the informant asserted that he cannot do any mischief to her, the boy passenger took out an iron revolver and asked all the passengers not to move and further asked passenger Birendra Singh that if the trekker stopped mid way before reaching Ghoshrawan, it will have serious consequences and forced the trekker driver to proceed further. The passengers in the trekker became scared and stated that the boy is Dhirendra Kumar Singh @ Dhiraj, son of Ram Nandan Singh of village- Ghoshrawan who is famous by the name of Advani and that he resorts to firing on trivial issues. Having learnt the conduct of the boy, informant and others became scared and sat silently in the trekker. Meanwhile, the trekker reached near Durgapur Chowk, whereafter the trekker driver reduced the speed of the trekker to enable the passengers alighting at Durgapur to alight therefrom. The informant and his other relatives got down from the trekker but the boy did not allow his wife including the infant to alight therefrom by pointing pistol on her and again abused her by the name of her caste and forced the trekker driver to proceed further to enable him to kill her. The trekker proceeded further along with the boy, wife and the infant. The informant, Naresh Nut (P.W. 4) and others raising alarm proceeded on foot to village Ghoshrawan and in the way learnt from the villagers that Dhirendra has forcibly taken a woman towards the canal between 5.00-6.00 P.M. Meanwhile, several residents of village Durgapur also arrived and became ready to search the two. Soon thereafter police also came and the fardbeyan was recorded. In the penultimate paragraph of the fardbeyan informant expressed that he is confident that as he belongs to the weaker section of the society, his wife may be killed by the boy who has forcibly taken her.
2. The fardbeyan was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Giriak Police Station for registration of a case u/s 364 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the scribe of the fardbeyan Tulsi Ram (P.W.8) with further endorsement that he has already taken up the investigation of the case. In the light of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Giriak P.S. Case No. 004/04 dated 16.01.2004 was registered for the offence u/s 364 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on 16.01.2004 and forwarded to the Court on 17.01.2004. Meanwhile, the dead body of the wife, infant son of the informant was recovered on 17.01.2004 at about 10.30 A.M. from the wheat field of Lal Kishore Singh of Village Ghoshrawan in presence of Upendra Nut (P.W.1), Shankar Nut (P.W. 2), Dilip Kumar, the witnesses on the inquest-report of both the wife of the informant and his infant son. After recovery of the dead body Section 302 I.P.C. was also added in the First Information Report vide order dated 19.01.2004. During investigation, Investigating Officer (P.W.-8) recorded the further statement of the informant, statement of the other witnesses, collected the post mortem report and submitted charge-sheet on the basis of which cognizance was taken of the offences alleged and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
3. In support of the prosecution case during trial, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Upendra Nut @ Upendra Sapera, the witness on the inquest-report of the deceased Sunaina Devi and her infant son. P.W. 2 Shankar Nut is also an inquest witness. P.W. 3 Shakila Devi is the aunt of the informant who travelled with the informant, two deceased in the trekker. P.W. 4 Naresh Nut, brother-in-law of the informant who was also travelling with the informant, his wife and others in the trekker is also an eye-witness of abduction of the wife of the informant. P.W. 5 Dr. Anil Kumar Jangbahadur conducted post mortem on the dead body of Sunaina Devi and the infant. P.W. 6 Tetar Sapera is a resident of village Durgapur, whom the informant met after he reached village Durgapur and went along with him to village Ghoshrawan in search of his wife, infant son. P.W. 7 Chamru Nut is the informant. P.W. 8 Tulsi Ram is the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W. 9 Ram Sakhi is a formal witness who has seen the dead body of the wife, child of the informant.
4. In order to appreciate the prosecution case, as unfolded in the trial, it is necessary to examine the evidence of the eye-witnesses, namely, P.W. 7 informant Chamru Nut, P.W. 3 Shakila Devi and P.W. 4 Naresh Nut.
(i) To begin with, we first consider the evidence of informant (P.W. 7). He has stated in his evidence that occurrence took place one year and one and a half months earlier on Friday after he boarded trekker with his wife Sunaina Devi, infant son, aunt Shakila Devi (P.W. 3) and brother-in-law Naresh Nut (P.W. 4) for going to Village Durgapur. In the way there was altercation between the appellant and one another traveler who was not only assaulted by the appellant but also forced to alight from the trekker after covering some distance near Pawapuri Chowk. His wife protested the assault made by the appellant on the other passenger, whereafter the appellant asked his wife about her destination, caste. Having come to know that she is Nut by caste abused, threatened her of dire consequences reminding her that she could not have questioned his status as an outlawed (Rangdar) of the area and further threatened that he will teach her a lesson and instructed the driver not to permit her to alight at Durgapur Chowk. Driver reduced the speed of the trekker after the trekker reached Durgapur Chowk. Informant (P.W. 7), Shakila (P.W. 3), Naresh (P.W. 4) alighted from the trekker, the appellant, however, did not permit Sunaina, wife of P.W. 7 to alight from the trekker on the point of pistol and forced the driver to proceed ahead. Informant and others chased the trekker but the trekker went away. Informant and other witnesses came to village Ghoshrawan on foot, the other relatives of the informant from Durgapur. P.W. 6 Tetar Nut @ Sapera and P.W. 1 Upendra Nut and others also went along with him to search his wife. Meanwhile, police arrived near Ghoshrawan High School and recorded his fardbeyan and proceeded to search the victim but she was not found. The search even continued beyond morning and ultimately in a wheat field of Lal Kishore Singh nude dead body of Sunaina Devi and her infant son was found at some distance. Informant has stood the test of cross-examination and from his evidence it appears that the altercation between the deceased and appellant has begun in the trekker as the deceased attempted to defend the other passenger whom appellant had earlier assaulted and forced him to get down from the trekker near Pawapuri Chowk. The appellant then asked Sunaina about her caste and having come to know that she is Nut by caste not only abused her but also threatened her with dire consequences and ultimately at Durgapur Chowk did not allow her to get down from the trekker and forced the trekker driver to proceed permitting the informant, her husband and other relatives to alight therefrom. The next morning dead body of Sunaina and her child was found in the wheat field of Lal Kishore Singh. From the post mortem report of Sunaina and the infant, it is evident that both have been strangulated. The two passengers of the trekker P.W. 3 Shakila Devi and P.W. 4 Naresh Nut have also supported the occurrence and have stood the test of cross-examination. There is nothing in the evidence of either P.W. 7, 3, 4 to doubt the veracity of their testimony as they have not only supported the occurrence in Court but have also withstood the test of cross-examination. P.W. 6 Tetar Sapera has also supported the subsequent part of the occurrence i.e. after the informant and others alighted from the trekker at Durgapur Chowk raising alarm and met Tetar Sapera who having learnt about the occurrence went along with informant and others including Upendra Nut, Shankar Nut and others to search for the wife of the informant and her infant son in village Ghoshrawan but they were not found during the night. The search continued even in the morning and ultimately at about 10.30 A.M. the following day the dead body of the wife of the informant and her infant son was found. Aforesaid case has been fully supported by P.Ws. 6, 1, 2.
(ii) P.W. 5 is Dr. Anil Kumar Jangbahadur, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Sunaina Devi, wife of the informant and his infant son found that the two were strangulated, as would appear from the post mortem report of Sunaina Devi (Ext.-5) and that of her infant son (Ext.- 5/1). P.W.-9 Ram Sakhi has also supported the prosecution case as he has stated in his evidence that he saw the dead body of the two victims.
(iii). Investigating Officer Tulsi Ram (P.W. 8) has stated that he having recorded the fardbeyan of P.W. 7 forwarded the same to the Police Station for registration of the case taking up its investigation and proceeded to search for the wife and infant son of the informant and continued with the search during the night but the two could not be found. He also stated that the search continued till next morning when in the wheat field of Lal Kishore Singh dead body of the wife of the informant Sunaina Devi, her infant son was found around 10.30 A.M. at some distance. He also stated that the dead body of the wife of the informant was nude but the body of the infant was clad in a swetter. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer there does not appear any material contradiction or omission made by the prosecution witnesses in recording their evidence in Court as prosecution witnesses have supported the version which they gave about the occurrence to the Investigating Officer. There being hardly any contradiction between the police statement and the prosecution evidence led in Court, it is difficult for us not to believe the prosecution evidence as set out in Court.
5. We have already stated above that the prosecution witnesses have supported all the three parts of the prosecution case i.e. the altercation which the appellant had with the co-traveler and after assault forced the co-traveller to alight from the trekker at Pawapuri Chowk. The witnesses have also supported that appellant asked the deceased her destination and caste and that he abused her after coming to know that she is Nut by caste and also informed her his status as outlawed (Rangdar) and that further threatened her of dire consequences as she is Nut by caste and then at Durgapur Chowk the wife of the informant (victim) was not permitted by the appellant to alight from the trekker on gun point. The informant and others followed the trekker for some distance but it proceeded ahead whereafter informant (P.W. 7), P.Ws. 3, 4 raising alarm came to Village Durgapur, met P.W. 6 Tetar Nut @ Sapera, P.W. 1 Upendra Nut @ Sapera, P.W. 2 Shankar Nut and went along with them and others to Village Ghoshrawan in search of the wife of the informant, meanwhile the police arrived, recorded the fardbeyan and proceeded to search the victim but she could not be found during night, the search continued in the morning and ultimately the dead bodies were found in wheat field of Lal Kishore Singh in village Ghoshrawan, the appellant''s village, at about 10.30 A.M. the following morning.
6. The abduction of the wife of the informant, his infant son on gun point at Durgapur Chowk by the appellant on 16.01.2004 around 3 P.M. having been proved, the dead body of the two deceased recovered in the next morning at about 10.30 A.M., in the circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed, however, with modification in the part of the sentence, whereunder appellant has been asked to undergo further simple imprisonment for two years, if he chooses not to pay the fine. Such order of sentence is modified from two years to one year. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Court below with a copy of this judgment and order.
