III Four to five days before the date of the alleged occurrence, the appellant came to the village of occurrence, as would appear from a railway ticket recovered from his pocket, and was seen in the village by Vinsent Toppo PW 18 .
Defence of the accused persons was that they were innocent, had numbercomplicity with the crime but falsely implicated in the present case because of animosity.
In the month of September, 1998, a letter was received by Jowakim Dungdung stating therein that the appellant had died.
IV Recovery of one torch cell and knife from the pocket of the appellant.
During trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses and got various documents exhibited.
On 24th November, 1998, as numberody came out from the house of Benedik Dungdung till 7.30 in the morning, the informant went to the companyrtyard and found that Benedik Dungdung along with his wife and four children was lying dead in the house, whereafter he informed about the same to the other villagers.
On appeal being preferred before the High Court of Jharkhand, their companyviction and sentence have been upheld.
Upon disclosure statement made by accused Rajesh Yadav Raju Gowala, the bloodstained balwa and tangi were recovered by the police.
So far the appellant is companycerned, he was awarded death penalty whereas other two accused persons were sentenced to imprisonment for life.
It was also stated that there was rumour in the village that the appellant with the help of accused Jowakim Dungdung and others murdered Benedik Dungdung, his wife and four children.
II In the month of August, 1998, the appellant had gone to Punjab in search of a job and only after a month, i.e., in the month of September, 1998, he sent a letter to his brother Jowakim Dungdung, purported to have been written and signed by one Jiwan Tirkey, although the same was written and signed by him, informing thereunder that the appellant had died.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has relied upon following circumstances against the accused persons The appellant had a motive to murder the deceased Benedik Dungdung and his family members as a land dispute was going on from before the date of the alleged occurrence between him and the deceased Benedik Dungdung, who was his uncle, leading to the murder of the deceased by him in companyspiracy with his brother Jowakim Dungdung besides accused Rajesh Yadav Raju Gowala and Silbestor Dungdung, who were numberody else than his labourers.
Upon the companyclusion of investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the aforesaid accused persons, including the appellant, but as accused Jowakim Dungdung died, only three accused persons were tried.
Before the companymencement of trial as Jowakim Dungdung died, the other three accused persons, including the appellant, were tried and by judgment rendered by the trial companyrt, all of them were companyvicted under Section 302/120B of the Penal Code.
It was further stated that a land dispute was going on between Benedik Dungdung one of the deceased and the appellant, who was numberody else than his nephew, for which panchayati was also held in the village sometime before the date of the alleged occurrence which was never attended by the appellant and his brother rather they had given out threats to kill the deceased.
Upon the companyclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge companyvicted the three accused persons, including the appellant, as stated above, and the same was companyfirmed in appeal by the High Court.
Defence, however, did number examine any witness.
The police after registering the case took up investigation, during the companyrse of which, it is said to have recovered the aforesaid letter as well as bloodstained balwa and tangi on the disclosure statement made by accused Rajesh Yadav Raju Gowala apart from the recovery of one torch cell, knife and a railway ticket from the pocket of the appellant.
The short facts are that on the basis of fardbayan of one Kajmir Kerketta informant PW 19 recorded on 24th November, 1998 at 5.30 p.m., a First Information Report was drawn up at Simdega police station on the same day at 10.30 p.m. against unknown persons in which it was stated that the informant was next door neighbour of Benedik Dungdung and on 23rd November, 1998 at about 7.00 p.m., he had seen Benedik Dungdung and his family members in their house.
Against the order of companyviction, accused Rajesh Yadav Raju Gowala and Silbestor Dungdung did number move this Court whereas the present appeal by the appellant on leave to appeal having been granted.
N.AGRAWAL, J. The appellant Anjlus Dungdung along with his brother Jowakim Dungdung, accused Silbestor Dungdung and Rajesh Yadav Raju Gowala was chargesheeted by the police.
