JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra S Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.05.2012 (Sentence passed on 24.05.2012), by Shri Ghanshyam Kumar Mallik, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 90 of 2001(S), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences under sections 302, 201/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The fardbeyan of one Palo Hembrom was recorded on 15.3.2010 at 7 a.m., in which it has been stated that her husband-Birsa Hembrom works as a Peon in Chaibasa Court and everyday he goes out for his duty on his bicycle. On 9.3.2000, her husband had left for his duty at 7 A.M. but he did not return. When on the next day also, he did not return, the informant became suspicious and he informed his son who stays in a hostel and both of them made a search at various places. It has been alleged that on 14.03.2000, the informant came to know that a dead body was found floating in a well at village-Punduguttu. On hearing such news, he went to Punduguttu along with her son and identified the body floating in the well as that of her husband. When the dead body of the husband of the informant was taken out from the well, several injuries were found on his person, which were perhaps inflicted with a sharp cutting weapon. In order to cause disappearance of the dead body, a stone was strapped on his right leg before being thrown in the well. It has been alleged that the husband of the informant was on inimical term with the accused-Gardi Mundari @ Diku for the last six months since the accused on the pretext of marriage had physical relationship with the daughter of Bara Sadhu Kalundia resulting in her becoming pregnant and on account of being related to Bara Sadhu Kalundia, he was pressuring the accused to solemnize marriage with Madey Kui, the daughter of Bara Sadhu Kalundia. Further allegation has been levelled that Gardi Mundari often used to come at night to the house of the informant and threaten her husband to not to get himself involved in the dispute. It was Gardi Mundari who had conspired and committed the murder of her husband and had thrown the dead body in the well to cause disappearance of evidence.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Manjhari P.S. Case No. 5 of 2000 was instituted against the appellant-Gardi Mundari @ Diku for the offences under sections 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against Pradeep Purty, Gardi Mundari and Chandra Mohan Mundari who has since died. After cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The present accused who was absconding was finally arrested and thereafter charge was framed against him under sections 302, 201/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case. It appears that four of the chargesheet witnesses namely Sura Kalundia, Bara Samad, Narsingh Diggi and Sri Ram Mundari had died during the pendency of the trial.

P.W-1-Lal Krishna Sidiu is a signatory to the inquest report, which has been marked as Ext-1. He has also proved his signature on the seizure list of the rope, which has been marked as Ext-1/1. He had also signed on the fardbeyan of Palo Hembrom, which has been proved and marked as Ext-1/2.

In cross-examination, he has stated that he