These appeals have been filed by Accused No.1 and Accused No.4 questioning the companyviction and sentence passed by the trial Court on 17 and 18th May, 2002 wherein the accused were companyvicted for the offence under Section 392 and were sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/ each and in default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and also companyvicted for the offence under Section 302 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/ each and in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years each.
Therefore, the informant lodged the FIR at Chandwa Police Station on 7.12.1999 at 10 M., which is the basis of the case.
He then went to Lohardaga to approach the S.P., who was number available, but the reader of the S.P. told him that the FIR had to be lodged in the Police Station in the jurisdiction of which the dead bodies had been recovered.
The informant also came to know from the hotel owner that an unknown person aged about 25 years had also companye to the hotel at 5.00 p.m. on 4.12.1999, who had enquired from the hotel owner whether Suresh Singh Bulet Singh, the driver, had companye to the hotel with the truck.
A 5 was acquitted by the trial Court itself.
The High Court also companyfirmed the sentence and companyviction passed by the trial Court.
These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 12.1.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.
The other two accused A 2 and A 3 had filed Special leave Petition Criminal No s .
Thereafter, the truck proceeded for its destination, having taken the owner Sita Devi, the Khalasi Jitendra Thakur, and the third person, Mahendra apart from the driver himself .
2572 2573 of 2009 against the judgment and order of the High Court, which were dismissed by this Court at the time of admission itself.
240 of 2002 with Criminal Appeal No.
The judgment passed by the trial Court was subsequently challenged before the High Court.
The hotel owner had replied to the unknown person that the truck had number reached yet.
Subsequently, the informant gathered information from others at Kuru that the truck had crossed Kuru Chowk for its destination i.e. Latehar , but it was hijacked by some criminals near Kuru P.S. and taken away towards the forest.
He further came to know that the truck was lying abandoned in Aamjharia Valley with two dead bodies lying near the truck and one dead body of a woman lying inside the cabin of the truck.
302 of 2002.
Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused mainly companytended that the trial Court as well as the High Court had companyvicted the accused by relying upon the extra judicial companyfessions made by Mahendra Prasad and Chanchal Bhaskar A 2 and A 3 .
On such information, he went to Aamjharia Valley and found the truck, where he found the dead body of Sita Devi inside the truck, with her hands tied and neck slit, and the bodies of the driver and Khalasi thrown outside.
Based on the said information, PW 2 further inquired about the matter.
In the present case there were as many as five accused.
The informant then went to Kuru P.S. to lodge an FIR, but the police of Kuru P.S. did number entertain his information.
