RANCHI, India, Aug. 5 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 4:

1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 19.03.1997 and order of sentence dated 20.03.1997, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No.427 of 1993, arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case No.86 of 1993 (G.R. No.1215 of 1993), registered under Sections 302/ 34, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by which all the three appellants have been convicted under sections 302/ 34/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Sections 302/ 34 IPC and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Factual Matrix

2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case.

3. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the First Information Report reads as hereunder: -

4. According to prosecution case, as given in the First Information Report (F.I.R.), in short, is that on 09.07.1993 the elder brother of the informant Gurucharan Yadav son of Ganpat Mahto was executing the work in a pond at village Bhaluai through the Block under "Jaldhara Scheme" at the relevant time. On 09.07.1993 the deceased along with accused Nanhu Mian son of Ismail Mian had gone to Block Office, Dhanwar and while returning from the Block Office, they got down at about 6 P.M at village Balhara. Both of them started from Balhara on cycle from the village Charkhiawar (Kodwari) as stated by a shop-keeper Basudeo Rai. However, they did not return. The informant Narayan Yadav who happens to be the brother of the deceased along with others started searching for them at the places of their relatives. But, they were traceless. The informant also asked Ismail Mian, the father of the accused Nanhu Mian, who told him that his son had gone to Lucknow in connection with his employment. The informant also made a telephonic contact with the Malik of Nanhu Mian at Lucknow. That Malik belongs to his community. The Malik told him that Nanhu Mian had come before five days, and was working at Barailly. The informant's brother Sukhdeo Yadav and his mama-sasur Umesh Yadav of village Chandranagar went to search them at Lucknow where the Malik told them that Nanhu Mian had not reached there. The prosecution case is that since the date of occurrence Nanhu Mian and his brother Munna Mian had absconded from their house there was a suspicion that Nanhu Mian, his brother Munna Mian and their relatives had kidnapped the deceased and in furtherance of their common intention it is likely that they had killed him. There was hulla-gulla six months prior to the occurrence between the parties. However, cordial relationship had developed between them. It is likely that this cordial relationship was intentional in order to deceive the deceased.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rDIxkKXeSSjrv2BCmGytBDKThFUpgWDMh2M5opOvornzDfyyzK0e3TpO622IANIn&caseno=Cr.A(DB)/96/1997&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010022381997&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.