Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.366 of 2005 (Against the judgment of conviction dated 13.04.2005 and order of sentence dated 20.04.2005 passed by Sri Vijay Kumar Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Lakhisarai in Sessions Trial No.696 of 2002) =========================================================== 1. Dilip Kumar Das @ Dilip Das, son of late Neti Das. 2. Moti Lal Das, son of late Kare Lal Das. 3. Doman Das, son of late Bhola Das. (All residents of village-Deoghara, P.S.- Medni Chowki, District- Lakhisarai) .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s With Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 361 of 2005 =========================================================== Sabita Devi, wife of Naresh Das, resident of village- Deoghara, P.S.- Suryagarha (Medni Chowki), District- Lakhisarai. .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (DB) No. 366 of 2005) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Narendra Pd. Singh, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, Add.P.P. (In CR. APP (DB) No. 361 of 2005) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Narendra Pd. Singh, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, Add.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Date: 17-08-2012 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.366 of 2005 dt.17-08-2012 2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.361 of 2005 filed by Sabita Devi and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.366 of 2005 filed by Dilip Kumar Das @ Dilip Das, Moti Lal Das and Doman Das have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 13.04.2005 and order of sentence dated 20.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Lakhisarai in Sessions Trial No.696 of 2002 by which they have been held guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/-each and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for one year under [STATUTE] . and they have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.2000/-each under [STATUTE] . and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for four months. It has been directed that both the sentences would run concurrently. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of Sessions Trial No.696 of 2002 arising out of Surajgarha P.S. Case No.231 of 2002, as such, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.08.2002, Sumit Kumar, aged about 10 years (deceased), the son of the informant Suresh Das (P.W.6) had gone to play near house but he did not come back to his house. On 17.08.2002, an information was given Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.366 of 2005 dt.17-08-2012 3 to the Surajgarha police station about the missing of the child as he might have gone to somewhere. On 20.08.2002 at about 10.30 A.M., foul smells were coming out from his neighbour’s house Motilal Das (appellant no.2 in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.366 of 2005). Thereafter, the informant and his co-villagers went near the house of Motilal Das and found that door of his house was closed and co-villagers got opened the door of the house of Motilal and saw that Motilal Das, Sabita Devi (elder brother’s wife of the informant) neighbour Dilip Das and Doman Das were perplexed. A foul smell was coming out from his house, as such; the villagers started searching the object. In the meantime, all the four accused (appellants) were trying to move away from the house. They were prevented by the villagers. The informant and the co-villagers found that the dead body of Sumit (deceased) was lying in a room on the floor of the house and it was a smelling. It has been further alleged that all the four accused committed the murder of the Sumit (deceased) and hide the dead body by putting red sand and they were making plan to dispose of the dead body to screen the offence. After getting the dead body of Sumit Kumar, a number of co- villagers assembled there and they became unruly and they assaulted all the four accused and caused them injuries. The informant and the co-villagers intervened and all the four accused were handed over to the police. It has been further alleged that all the accused has caused Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.366 of 2005 dt.17-08-2012 4 the death of Sumit Kumar and hide the dead body and they were trying to dispose of the dead body to screen themselves from the offence. The fardbeyan (Ext.4) was recorded by the S.I. Devendra Singh (P.W.10) on 20.08.2002 at 12.20 hours at village- Deoghra, P.S.- Surajgarha (Medani Chowki) in the District of Lakhisarai. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan of the informant, Surajgarha (Medni Chowki) P.S. Case No.231 of 2002 dated 20.08.2002 was recorded under [STATUTE] . and cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions. The charges were framed against all the four accused (appellants) under [STATUTE] . to which they denied and claimed to be tried. As such, the trial proceeded. After the trial, all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by the impugned judgment against which they have filed the aforesaid appeals. 4. The defence of the accused appellants is of innocence and their false implication only on the basis of suspicion. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in support of the case, but there is no eye witness of the occurrence. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is complete want of chain on the point of killing of the deceased. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.366 of 2005 dt.17-08-2012 5 6. It has been furt

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.