JUDGMENT
Deoki Nandan Prasad and Hari Sharikar Prasad, JJ.
1. This Criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in connection with Sessions Trial No. 323 of 1999 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Smt. Alomoni Devi gave a fardbayan before the police on 19-4-1998 that she has been residing in New Kapali Basti along with his younger brother and her sons Meghnath and Chhotubabu. She is working in the Bunglow of Coty Saheb to maintain herself and her children. Her son was also working in Dumping. Her daughter Ahalya (deceased) was illiterate and unmarried whose marriage was settled with Suraj Bhuiyan with consent of family members of both the parties as there was earlier relation between them. Suraj was also ready to marry under the pressure of his parents and society and the parent of Suraj had given some clothes to her daughter being Saries and other things as per customs and the appellant started to come to the house of the informant and talking with her daughter (deceased). It is further alleged that on 14-4-1998 at about 9 p.m. the younger brother of the appellant namely Chhotan Bhuiyan came to her house and had a talk with her daughter (deceased) and just after his departure, Suraj Bhuiyan came in the night and accompanied her daughter at the relevant time and at that time her daughter was wearing red-yellow colour printed salwar suit and a white Hawai chappal. Because marriage was already settled with the appellant and as such the informant did not raise any inquiry or objection of going her daughter with Suraj Bhuiyan. She could not return till third day of her departure and thereafter a search was made and when they went to the house of Suraj Bhuiyan and inquired about her daughter but the appellant Suraj Bhuiyan and his younger brother refused to give any information. Thereafter suspicion arose against them and they started searching of her daughter. In course of search, she went to the bank of Swarnrekha river about 200 feet from the Smashan Ghat and dead body was detected at the bank of river and she along with her relatives identified the dead body as being the daughter of informant. It was tied with wire by keeping the dead body in the gunny bag. On the basis of black thread, nose ring, ear ring and red colour bangles in the hand, they claimed to have identified her daughter Ahilya, Accordingly the first information Report was lodged before the police. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge sheet against Suraj Bhuiyan, the appellant and the other Chhotan Bhuiyan.
3. It may be noted here that the case of the Chhotan Bhuiyan was separated because he was juvenile and his case was being tried in the Juvenile Justice Court. The appellant appeared before the Court below and charge was framed under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Witnesses were examined before the trial Court and after hearing both sides and considering the evidence available on record, the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him for the offence charged in the manner as alleged. This appellant has preferred this appeal from the jail itself.
4. At the very outset, it may be noted here that the appellant was arrested by the police and the I.O. (P.W. 5) admitted in his evidence in clear term that this appellant confessed his guilt and also pointed out about the place where the dead body was kept tagging with wire and on his indication the dead body was recovered as well as the clothes of the deceased had also been recovered from the place which was pointed out by the appellant. It may be further mentioned here that the doctor (P.W. 1) who held post mortem found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:
(i) Bruise 6×4 cm over forehead.
(ii) Rounded bruise 3×2 cm over front of neck.
All the injuries were found to be ante mortem caused by hard and blunt substance. Death was caused due to throttling. Post mortem report was marked as Ext. 1.
5. P.W. 2 is the informant and she stated in clear term that the deceased was taken by the appellant in the night of 14th and thereafter she could not return to her house. The informant claimed to had inquired about her daughter from the appellant but he gave evasive reply as a result whereof suspicion arose against him and on search the dead body was recovered from the river which was tied in a gunny bag with wire.
6. P.W. 3 also deposed that Suraj Bhuiyan had come in the night on the day of occurrence at about 8/8.30 p.m. and then she could not return her house. On inquiry from Suraj, he denied and thereafter the information was lodged before the police. According to him, the dead body was recovered on the indication of Suraj and she was done to death by Suraj Bhuiyan, Nothing material has been elicited in his cross examination.
7. P.W. 4 is a formal witness. P.W. 6 also supported the prosecution case claiming that the deceased, Ahalya accompanied Suraj Bhuiyan at about 8 p.m. on the day of occurrence and thereafter she was traceless. He identified the clothes of the deceased (Ahalya) which was produced in the Court and marked as material exhibits. He also deposed in paragraph 2 that the clothes of the deceased (Ahalya) was recovered.and seized on the indication of Suraj Bhuiyan (appellant).
8. We want to discuss the evidence of the investigating officer who clearly stated that Suraj Bhuiyan confessed his guilt and also confessed about the concealing the clothes of Ahalya at the place from where it was detected. So, the confessional statement leading recovery of the clothes of the deceased is quite admissible in the eye of law.
9. It may be noted here that Suraj Bhuiyan was arrested on 20-4-1998 at 18.30 hours and his confessional statement was made and the said articles being clothes of Ahalya was recovered on the same day on 20-4-1998 at 20.30 hours. The said clothes were also duly identified by the witnesses in course of trial which makes a clear picture that it was the accused/appellant who had taken away the deceased from the house at the night and thereafter she was done to death,
10. It is settled that the conviction under circumstantial evidence, the Court must firmly satisfy three tests”
(i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drown, must be cogently and firmly established,
(ii) These circumstances should be a definite tendency un erringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
(iii) The circumstances taken cumulative should form a chain so completed that there is no scope from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else.
11. In the instant case, the circumstances collected on the record from a chain so completed pointing un erringly towards the guilt of the accused/appellant. It is true that there is no eye witness of the occurrence but the circumstance which have been collected at the time of trial unequivocally lead a definite conclusion that it was none else but the appellant had committed murder of girl. The doctor opined the cause of death due to throttling, therefore, death was homicidal and not suicidal. The circumstances are fully established indicating the appellant who has committed murder of Ahalya by throttling and the dead body was thrown in the Swarnrekha river, The trial Court also considered the entire evidence meticulously and passed the order of conviction which requires no interference by us.
12. Thus, it is evident that the prosecution has fully established the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial below is, hereby, confirmed. Appellant has already been in custody.