RAJENDRA MAHTON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was prosecuted under Section 302, I.P.C. The case of the prosecution was briefly as follows:On April 21, 1981 at about 7.00 p.m. the appellant went to the shop belonging to the deceased Arjun Sao near his residence and demanded a packet of cigarette from PW 4 the daughter of the deceased. At that time PW 6, the wife of the deceased, PW 7, the wife of the brother of PW 6, PW 5, the son of the deceased and PW 3, a resident of nearby house were also present. When the appellant demanded a packet of cigarette, PW 4 and PW 6 informed him that there was no cigarette in the shop. The appellant used abusive language and made certain derisive remarks. The deceased protested against the same. Immediately the appellant took out a pistol and shot the deceased who fell down and died at the spot. PW 8, the Investigation Officer come to the village at about 2.00 a.m. in connection with investigation of another case on a complaint lodged by the grand father of the appellant that there was dacoity in the village by certain persons. At that time he was informed about the killing of the deceased by PW 7 whose statement was recorded by him. The appellant was not traceable for some time. Later a case was registered against him.

(2.) The appellant denied the occurrence and claim that he was falsely implicated. According to the appellant there was an attempt by certain persons to commit dacoity in the house of his grand father and when there was a hue and cry, the dacoits fired shots from there and ran away. According to the appellant one such gun shot hit the deceased and was the cause of his death.

(3.) The prosecution examined eight witnesses while the appellant examined two witnesses in support of his case. The Court of sessions at Nalanda opined that the charge against the appellant was not proved beyond all reasonable doubts and he was therefore entitled to benefit of doubt. Consequently he was acquitted. On appeal by the State, the High Court at Patna reversed the judgment of the sessions Court and held that the appellant was guilty of committing an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. The appellant was therefore convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. It is the judgment of the High Court which is under challenge in this appeal.